Comparison of Digital Pathology and Light Microscopy Among Dermatology Residents: A Reappraisal Following Practice Changes.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 DERMATOLOGY
Donald E Neal, Emma F Johnson, Shruti Agrawal, Austin Todd, Michael J Camilleri, Carilyn N Wieland
{"title":"Comparison of Digital Pathology and Light Microscopy Among Dermatology Residents: A Reappraisal Following Practice Changes.","authors":"Donald E Neal, Emma F Johnson, Shruti Agrawal, Austin Todd, Michael J Camilleri, Carilyn N Wieland","doi":"10.1097/DAD.0000000000002805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Following transition to digital pathology for primary diagnosis at our institution, dermatology residents have reduced exposure to light microscopy. This study compares resident competency with light microscopy versus digital pathology following practice changes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-one dermatology residents were administered a dermatopathology examination composed of 32 diagnoses evaluated using digital slides and 32 with light microscopy. Case difficulty was graded and balanced between modalities. Diagnostic accuracy was measured using the number of correct diagnoses for each modality. Participants were surveyed regarding their experience and preferences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Diagnostic accuracy was higher with digital pathology than light microscopy (22/32 vs. 18/32, P < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy with digital pathology increased with years of training, but accuracy with light microscopy did not. Residents with previous light microscopy experience achieved an average score of 19/32 on glass, as compared with 10/32 for those without experience (P = 0.039). Digital pathology was preferred over light microscopy (18/21, 85.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Trainees had better diagnostic proficiency with digital pathology and preferred this modality. Most practices at this time continue to use light microscopy. Therefore, we need to maintain proficiency in microscopy during training while concurrently preparing trainees for a digital future.</p>","PeriodicalId":50967,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Dermatopathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Dermatopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/DAD.0000000000002805","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Following transition to digital pathology for primary diagnosis at our institution, dermatology residents have reduced exposure to light microscopy. This study compares resident competency with light microscopy versus digital pathology following practice changes.

Methods: Twenty-one dermatology residents were administered a dermatopathology examination composed of 32 diagnoses evaluated using digital slides and 32 with light microscopy. Case difficulty was graded and balanced between modalities. Diagnostic accuracy was measured using the number of correct diagnoses for each modality. Participants were surveyed regarding their experience and preferences.

Results: Diagnostic accuracy was higher with digital pathology than light microscopy (22/32 vs. 18/32, P < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy with digital pathology increased with years of training, but accuracy with light microscopy did not. Residents with previous light microscopy experience achieved an average score of 19/32 on glass, as compared with 10/32 for those without experience (P = 0.039). Digital pathology was preferred over light microscopy (18/21, 85.7%).

Conclusions: Trainees had better diagnostic proficiency with digital pathology and preferred this modality. Most practices at this time continue to use light microscopy. Therefore, we need to maintain proficiency in microscopy during training while concurrently preparing trainees for a digital future.

皮肤科住院医师对数字病理学和光学显微镜的比较:实践变革后的重新评估。
背景:我院在向数字病理诊断过渡后,皮肤科住院医师减少了接触光学显微镜的机会。本研究比较了实践改变后住院医师使用光学显微镜和数字病理学的能力:方法:21 名皮肤科住院医师接受了皮肤病理学检查,其中 32 例诊断使用数码切片评估,32 例使用光学显微镜评估。对病例难度进行分级,并在两种方法之间进行平衡。诊断准确性以每种方式的正确诊断数来衡量。对参与者的经验和偏好进行了调查:结果:数字病理学诊断准确率高于光学显微镜(22/32 对 18/32,P < 0.001)。数字病理学的诊断准确率随培训年限的增加而提高,但光学显微镜的准确率却没有增加。有过光学显微镜检查经验的住院医师在玻璃片上的平均得分为 19/32,而没有经验的住院医师为 10/32(P = 0.039)。与光学显微镜相比,数字病理学更受青睐(18/21,85.7%):结论:受训者对数字病理诊断的熟练程度更高,更喜欢这种方式。目前,大多数医疗机构仍在使用光学显微镜。因此,我们需要在培训期间保持显微镜检查的熟练程度,同时让受训者为未来的数字化病理检查做好准备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
453
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Dermatopathology offers outstanding coverage of the latest diagnostic approaches and laboratory techniques, as well as insights into contemporary social, legal, and ethical concerns. Each issue features review articles on clinical, technical, and basic science advances and illuminating, detailed case reports. With the The American Journal of Dermatopathology you''ll be able to: -Incorporate step-by-step coverage of new or difficult-to-diagnose conditions from their earliest histopathologic signs to confirmatory immunohistochemical and molecular studies. -Apply the latest basic science findings and clinical approaches to your work right away. -Tap into the skills and expertise of your peers and colleagues the world over peer-reviewed original articles, "Extraordinary cases reports", coverage of practical guidelines, and graphic presentations. -Expand your horizons through the Journal''s idea-generating forum for debating controversial issues and learning from preeminent researchers and clinicians
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信