ArticleAcademic pathology
Development and validation of a peripheral blood smear assessment tool using cloud-based full-field digital microscopy.
Article in Academic pathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peripheral blood smear review is a fundamental skill that aids in the timely diagnosis of morbid conditions in hematology. There is a lack of existing, evidence-based assessment tools to evaluate learners and guide curricular development both in peripheral blood smear review and analogous visuospatial skills across medical specialties. We collected validity evidence for a novel assessment tool for use in hematology education. We recruited attending hematologists, hematology fellows, and internal medicine residents to participate in the development of this assessment tool. The attending cohort participated in iterative revision of a digital microscopy-based assessment tool encompassing classical and malignant hematology. The validated tool then compared performance across attending, clinical fellow, and resident cohorts. Attending accuracy was poor with peripheral blood smear images alone and improved significantly with the addition of clinical context. Performance increased across training levels with attending and fellow performance significantly outpacing resident performance. Characteristics of morphologic descriptions varied significantly across cohorts. Digital microscopy image quality was considered to be equivalent to light microscopy with minor limitations. This tool offers hematology and pathology educators a validated method to assess learners and evaluate microscopy-based curricular developments. Further investment is required to broaden applications within hematology and pathology education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.