Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42535314›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of pathology2026

Practical considerations for pathologists when selecting digital pathology systems: an ESDIP guide.

Diana Montezuma, Vincenzo L'Imperio, David Ameisen, Rita Carvalho, Peter Boor, Sara P Oliveira, Nadieh Khalili, Inti Zlobec, Norman Zerbe, Jordi Temprana-Salvador

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Diana MontezumaEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9551-4589
Vincenzo L'ImperioEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.
David AmeisenEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.
Rita CarvalhoEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.
Peter BoorEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.
Sara P OliveiraEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6586-9079
Nadieh KhaliliEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.
Inti ZlobecEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.
Norman ZerbeEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.
Jordi Temprana-SalvadorEuropean Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP), Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9516-1680

Funding

European Research Council 101001791Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF, STOP-FSGS-01GM2202CGerman Research Foundation 322900939German Research Foundation 445703531German Research Foundation INST 222/1582-1Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee 01VSF21048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The implementation of digital pathology (DP) has been reported across academic, public, and private laboratory settings, providing valuable insights into workflow transformation. However, comparatively little guidance exists on how DP systems should be evaluated prior to acquisition and deployment. Given the substantial financial investment and long-term strategic implications of DP infrastructure, a structured and context-aware evaluation process is essential. In this practical guide, developed by the European Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP) https://www.esdipath.org/, we outline a comprehensive approach for the pre-deployment assessment of DP systems. Drawing on collective experience from multiple institutions and supported by relevant literature, we describe key parameters to consider when evaluating the core components of the DP ecosystem: whole slide scanners, image management systems, workstations, storage infrastructure, and laboratory information systems. We highlight methodological differences between large-scale multisite procurement processes and single-institution implementations, emphasising realistic workload testing, interoperability, and long-term scalability. By integrating technical and clinical perspectives, this guide aims to support pathology departments, IT teams, and institutional decision-makers in selecting DP solutions aligned with their specific institutional needs, infrastructure capabilities, and the future integration of computational pathology. © 2026 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Indexed as

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedPathologistsPathology, ClinicalClinical Laboratory Information SystemsDigital HealthHumansTelepathologyWorkflowcomputational pathologydigital pathologyimage management system (IMS)laboratory information system (LIS)storagewhole slide image (WSI)

Identifiers

PMID42535314
PMCPMC13635609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.