Literature DB >> 8217596

Pathology review in cancer research.

L S Freedman, D Machin.   

Abstract

Pathology observer agreement studies are clearly important in the development of new pathology assessments and in the quality control of those assessments in common use. Setting up such studies, and reporting and interpreting their results requires careful thought and statistical expertise. Investigators are advised to seek collaboration with a statistician before embarking on these studies. Pathology reference panel reviews in multicentre studies are useful for checking eligibility when there is a high level of disagreement on the eligibility criterion between local pathologists and the reference panel members, but good agreement between members of the panel. However, such situations are uncommon.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8217596      PMCID: PMC1968735          DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1993.440

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  16 in total

1.  Evaluation of pathology review of malignant lymphomas and Hodgkin's disease in cooperative clinical trials. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group experience.

Authors:  B C Wolf; K W Gilchrist; R B Mann; R S Neiman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1988-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  The pathology of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of childhood: II. Reproducibility and relevance of the histologic classification of "undifferentiated" lymphomas (Burkitt's versus non-Burkitt's).

Authors:  J F Wilson; C R Kjeldsberg; R Sposto; R D Jenkin; R R Chilcote; P Coccia; R R Exelby; J Kersey; A Meadows; S Siegel
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 3.  Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic.

Authors:  M Maclure; W C Willett
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  The design of observer agreement studies with binary assessments.

Authors:  L S Freedman; M K Parmar; S G Baker
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings.

Authors:  W D Owens; J A Felts; E L Spitznagel
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 7.892

7.  The reproducibility of a quantitative grading system of bladder tumours.

Authors:  E C Ooms; A P Blok; R W Veldhuizen
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 5.087

8.  A proposed index for measuring agreement in test-retest studies.

Authors:  E Rogot; I D Goldberg
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1966-09

Review 9.  Prognostic factors for survival in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  G Falkson; A Cnaan; A J Schutt; L M Ryan; H C Falkson
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1988-12-15       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  Lymphatic and blood vessel invasion in breast carcinoma: a useful prognostic indicator?

Authors:  A K Lee; R A DeLellis; M L Silverman; H J Wolfe
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 3.466

View more
  2 in total

1.  Malignant mesothelioma of the pleura: interobserver variability.

Authors:  A Andrion; C Magnani; P G Betta; A Donna; F Mollo; M Scelsi; P Bernardi; M Botta; B Terracini
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  The need for specialist review of pathology in paediatric cancer.

Authors:  S E Parkes; K R Muir; A H Cameron; F Raafat; M C Stevens; B J Morland; P C Barber; M P Carey; H Fox; E L Jones; H B Marsden; J R Pincott; J A Pringle; H Reid; D I Rushton; C M Starkie; H L Whitwell; D H Wright; J R Mann
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 7.640

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.