Literature DB >> 20924082

Recommendations for pathology peer review.

Daniel Morton1, Rani S Sellers, Erio Barale-Thomas, Brad Bolon, Catherine George, Jerry F Hardisty, Armando Irizarry, Jennifer S McKay, Marielle Odin, Munehiro Teranishi.   

Abstract

Pathology peer review verifies and improves the accuracy and quality of pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Pathology peer review is recommended when important risk assessment or business decisions are based on nonclinical studies. For pathology peer review conducted before study completion, the peer-review pathologist reviews sufficient slides and pathology data to assist the study pathologist in refining pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Materials to be reviewed are selected by the peer-review pathologist. Consultations with additional experts or a formal (documented) pathology working group may be used to resolve discrepancies. The study pathologist is solely responsible for the content of the final pathology data and report, makes changes resulting from peer-review discussions, initiates the audit trail for microscopic observations after all changes resulting from peer-review have been made, and signs the final pathologist's report. The peer-review pathologist creates a signed peer-review memo describing the peer-review process and confirming that the study pathologist's report accurately and appropriately reflects the pathology data. The study pathologist also may sign a statement of consensus. It is not necessary to archive working notes created during the peer-review process.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20924082     DOI: 10.1177/0192623310383991

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Toxicol Pathol        ISSN: 0192-6233            Impact factor:   1.902


  6 in total

Review 1.  Enhancing credibility of chemical safety studies: emerging consensus on key assessment criteria.

Authors:  James W Conrad; Richard A Becker
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 9.031

2.  Current status of pathological image analysis technology in pharmaceutical companies: a questionnaire survey of the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Yoshikawa; Yasushi Horai; Yoshiji Asaoka; Takanobu Sakurai; Satomi Kikuchi; Makiko Yamaoka; Masaharu Tanaka
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2020-01-26       Impact factor: 1.628

Review 3.  Role of pathology peer review in interpretation of the comet assay.

Authors:  Robert R Maronpot; Cheryl A Hobbs; Shim-Mo Hayashi
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 1.628

4.  Utilizing novel telepathology system in preclinical studies and peer review.

Authors:  Gabriel Siegel; Dan Regelman; Robert Maronpot; Moti Rosenstock; Shim-Mo Hayashi; Abraham Nyska
Journal:  J Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2018-07-08       Impact factor: 1.628

5.  Quality assurance guidance for scoring and reporting for pathologists and laboratories undertaking clinical trial work.

Authors:  Max Robinson; Jacqueline James; Gareth Thomas; Nicholas West; Louise Jones; Jessica Lee; Karin Oien; Alex Freeman; Clare Craig; Philip Sloan; Philip Elliot; Maggie Cheang; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Clare Verrill
Journal:  J Pathol Clin Res       Date:  2018-11-29

6.  Reevaluation and Classification of Duodenal Lesions in B6C3F1 Mice and F344 Rats from 4 Studies of Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water.

Authors:  John M Cullen; Jerrold M Ward; Chad M Thompson
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 1.902

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.