Literature DB >> 30068638

Review of diagnostic error in anatomical pathology and the role and value of second opinions in error prevention.

Martyn Peck1, David Moffat2, Bruce Latham3, Tony Badrick4.   

Abstract

AIMS: Diagnostic/interpretative accuracy can be challenging in anatomical pathology due to the subjective element of the diagnostic process. This can lead to false-negative or false-positive diagnoses of malignancy, variations in grading and diagnostic misclassification of a condition.It is imperative that an accurate diagnosis is achieved so that an appropriate and timely treatment is administered to the patient, for example, the success of targeted molecular therapeutic options for treatment of cancer is dependent on accurate anatomical pathology diagnoses being issued.
METHODS: A literature review of diagnostic accuracy in selected specimen categories was undertaken and was compared with data on metropolitan and regional pathologist diagnostic proficiency performance in an external quality assurance programme from surveys provided 2015-2017. For each specimen category, cases having attracted a diagnostic inaccuracy (ie, major discordance) of ≥20% and cases attracting a combined error rate (ie, major and minor discordance) of ≥30% are reviewed and discussed.
RESULTS: The rate of inaccurate diagnoses (assessed as a major discordance) ranged from 3% to 9% among the different specimen groups, with highest mean percentage of inaccurate diagnoses in gynaecology, dermatopathology and gastrointestinal specimens.
CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to ascertain that gynaecology, dermatopathology and gastrointestinal specimens had presented the greatest diagnostic challenge to the participant pathologists, determined as highest rate of diagnostic inaccuracy, that is, major discordance with respective case target diagnoses.Through a combination of routine second opinions, directed retrospective peer review and participation in appropriate external quality assurance schemes, the risk associated with these diagnoses can be minimised. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anatomical pathology; case review.; diagnostic accuracy; diagnostic error; diagnostic imprecision; interpretative error; quality assurance; second opinion

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30068638     DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2018-205226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  13 in total

1.  Pathologist second opinion significantly alters clinical management of pT1 endoscopically resected colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Gian Luca Rampioni Vinciguerra; Giulio Antonelli; Francesca Citron; Giammauro Berardi; Stefano Angeletti; Gustavo Baldassarre; Andrea Vecchione; Emilio Di Giulio; Emanuela Pilozzi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 2.  [The influence of the pathologist on the mental well-being of the patient].

Authors:  M Teufel; N Dörrie; E-M Skoda
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 3.  Artificial intelligence applied to breast pathology.

Authors:  Mustafa Yousif; Paul J van Diest; Arvydas Laurinavicius; David Rimm; Jeroen van der Laak; Anant Madabhushi; Stuart Schnitt; Liron Pantanowitz
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 4.  Rethinking drug design in the artificial intelligence era.

Authors:  Petra Schneider; W Patrick Walters; Alleyn T Plowright; Norman Sieroka; Jennifer Listgarten; Robert A Goodnow; Jasmin Fisher; Johanna M Jansen; José S Duca; Thomas S Rush; Matthias Zentgraf; John Edward Hill; Elizabeth Krutoholow; Matthias Kohler; Jeff Blaney; Kimito Funatsu; Chris Luebkemann; Gisbert Schneider
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 84.694

5.  A Systematic Review of Clinical Characteristics and Histologic Descriptions of Acute Tubular Injury.

Authors:  Yumeng Wen; Chen Yang; Steven P Menez; Avi Z Rosenberg; Chirag R Parikh
Journal:  Kidney Int Rep       Date:  2020-08-31

6.  Effects of a medical second opinion programme on patients' decision for or against knee arthroplasty and their satisfaction with the programme.

Authors:  Martin Weigl; Jens Pietzner; Rebecca Kisch; Alexander Paulus; Volkmar Jansson; Eva Grill
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 7.  Recurrence after pituitary surgery in adult Cushing's disease: a systematic review on diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Leah T Braun; German Rubinstein; Stephanie Zopp; Frederick Vogel; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Montserrat Pazos Escudero; Jürgen Honegger; Roland Ladurner; Martin Reincke
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 3.633

8.  Infectious disease consultations and newly diagnosed cancer patients: A single-center retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Yoshiro Hadano; Takashi Watari; Hiroshi Yasunaga
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Pan-cancer diagnostic consensus through searching archival histopathology images using artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Shivam Kalra; H R Tizhoosh; Sultaan Shah; Charles Choi; Savvas Damaskinos; Amir Safarpoor; Sobhan Shafiei; Morteza Babaie; Phedias Diamandis; Clinton J V Campbell; Liron Pantanowitz
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2020-03-10

10.  Commentary: Automated Diagnosis and Gleason Grading of Prostate Cancer - Are Artificial Intelligence Systems Ready for Prime Time?

Authors:  Anil V Parwani
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2019-12-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.