Literature DB >> 12817425

Agreement and error rates using blinded review to evaluate surgical pathology of biopsy material.

Andrew A Renshaw1, Norberto Cartagena, Scott R Granter, Edwin W Gould.   

Abstract

Blinded review has been shown to be an excellent method to detect disagreements and errors and improve performance in gynecologic cytology. Preliminary studies suggest it may be valuable in surgical pathology. We reviewed 5,000 sequential outpatient surgical pathology biopsy cases without knowledge of the original diagnosis or history and compared the results with those of the original diagnosis. Complete agreement was obtained in 91.12% of cases. The technique of blinded review of surgical pathology biopsy material had a sensitivity of more than 99%, failing to identify an abnormality in 19 cases. Although there was a significant level of diagnostic disagreement (444 cases), primarily due to differences in diagnostic thresholds (292 cases), diagnoses that resulted in a change in the original report (true errors) were present in only 5 cases, and only 4 were clinically significant. This clinically significant error rate of 0.08% is significantly lower than previously published error rates. Blinded review is a sensitive (99%) and effective method to identify areas of disagreement and errors in surgical pathology biopsy material. The relatively high rate of disagreement found with blinded review coupled with the very low rate of error highlights the substantial potential for bias in nonblinded reviews.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12817425     DOI: 10.1309/DCXA-XFVC-CHVH-YU41

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0002-9173            Impact factor:   2.493


  6 in total

1.  Multireader multicase reader studies with binary agreement data: simulation, analysis, validation, and sizing.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Adam Wunderlich; Nicholas Petrick; Brandon D Gallas
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-12-04

2.  How trustworthy is a diagnosis in head and neck surgical pathology? A consideration of diagnostic discrepancies (errors).

Authors:  Julia A Woolgar; Alfio Ferlito; Kenneth O Devaney; Alessandra Rinaldo; Leon Barnes
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-02-22       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Conclusions and data analysis: a 6-year study of Raman spectroscopy of solid tumors at a major pediatric institute.

Authors:  Alexander W Auner; Rachel E Kast; Raja Rabah; Janet M Poulik; Michael D Klein
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.827

4.  Single nucleotide polymorphism profiling assay to confirm the identity of human tissues.

Authors:  Ronald Huijsmans; Jan Damen; Hans van der Linden; Mirjam Hermans
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.568

5.  An independent assessment of an artificial intelligence system for prostate cancer detection shows strong diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Sudhir Perincheri; Angelique Wolf Levi; Romulo Celli; Peter Gershkovich; David Rimm; Jon Stanley Morrow; Brandon Rothrock; Patricia Raciti; David Klimstra; John Sinard
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 7.842

6.  Novel artificial intelligence system increases the detection of prostate cancer in whole slide images of core needle biopsies.

Authors:  Patricia Raciti; Jillian Sue; Rodrigo Ceballos; Ran Godrich; Jeremy D Kunz; Supriya Kapur; Victor Reuter; Leo Grady; Christopher Kanan; David S Klimstra; Thomas J Fuchs
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 8.209

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.