Synoptic Reporting in Clinical Placental Pathology: A Preliminary Investigation Into Report Findings and Interobserver Agreement.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 PATHOLOGY
Pediatric and Developmental Pathology Pub Date : 2023-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-21 DOI:10.1177/10935266231164446
Sonia R Dancey, Samantha J Benton, Anthea J Lafreniere, Michal Leckie, Benjamin McLeod, Jordan Sim, Dina El-Demellawy, David Grynspan, Shannon A Bainbridge
{"title":"Synoptic Reporting in Clinical Placental Pathology: A Preliminary Investigation Into Report Findings and Interobserver Agreement.","authors":"Sonia R Dancey,&nbsp;Samantha J Benton,&nbsp;Anthea J Lafreniere,&nbsp;Michal Leckie,&nbsp;Benjamin McLeod,&nbsp;Jordan Sim,&nbsp;Dina El-Demellawy,&nbsp;David Grynspan,&nbsp;Shannon A Bainbridge","doi":"10.1177/10935266231164446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Placental pathology is key for investigating adverse pregnancy outcomes, however, lack of standardization in reporting has limited clinical utility. We evaluated a novel placental pathology synoptic report, comparing its robustness to narrative reports, and assessed interobserver agreement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>100 singleton placentas were included. Histology slides were examined by 2 senior perinatal pathologists and 2 pathology residents using a synoptic report (32 lesions). Historical narrative reports were compared to synoptic reports. Kappa scores were calculated for interobserver agreement between senior, resident, and senior vs resident pathologists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Synoptic reporting detected 169 (51.4%) lesion instances initially not included in historical reports. Amongst senior pathologists, 64% of all lesions examined demonstrated fair-to-excellent agreement (Kappa ≥0.41), with only 26% of Kappas ≥0.41 amongst those examined by resident pathologists. Well-characterized lesions (e.g., chorioamnionitis) demonstrated higher agreement, with lower agreement for uncommon lesions and those previously shown to have poor consensus.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Synoptic reporting is one proposed method to address issues in placenta pathology reporting. The synoptic report generally identifies more lesions compared to the narrative report, however clinical significance remains unclear. Interobserver agreement is likely related to differential in experience. Further efforts to improve overall standardization of placenta pathology reporting are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":54634,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric and Developmental Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7e/ba/10.1177_10935266231164446.PMC10559645.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric and Developmental Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10935266231164446","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Placental pathology is key for investigating adverse pregnancy outcomes, however, lack of standardization in reporting has limited clinical utility. We evaluated a novel placental pathology synoptic report, comparing its robustness to narrative reports, and assessed interobserver agreement.

Methods: 100 singleton placentas were included. Histology slides were examined by 2 senior perinatal pathologists and 2 pathology residents using a synoptic report (32 lesions). Historical narrative reports were compared to synoptic reports. Kappa scores were calculated for interobserver agreement between senior, resident, and senior vs resident pathologists.

Results: Synoptic reporting detected 169 (51.4%) lesion instances initially not included in historical reports. Amongst senior pathologists, 64% of all lesions examined demonstrated fair-to-excellent agreement (Kappa ≥0.41), with only 26% of Kappas ≥0.41 amongst those examined by resident pathologists. Well-characterized lesions (e.g., chorioamnionitis) demonstrated higher agreement, with lower agreement for uncommon lesions and those previously shown to have poor consensus.

Discussion: Synoptic reporting is one proposed method to address issues in placenta pathology reporting. The synoptic report generally identifies more lesions compared to the narrative report, however clinical significance remains unclear. Interobserver agreement is likely related to differential in experience. Further efforts to improve overall standardization of placenta pathology reporting are needed.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

临床胎盘病理学中的天气报告:对报告结果和观察者间一致性的初步调查。
引言:胎盘病理学是研究不良妊娠结局的关键,然而,报告缺乏标准化,临床实用性有限。我们评估了一份新的胎盘病理学概要报告,将其稳健性与叙述性报告进行了比较,并评估了观察者之间的一致性。方法:纳入100例单胎胎盘。2名高级围产期病理学家和2名病理住院医师使用天气报告(32处病变)检查了组织学切片。将历史叙述性报告与概要性报告进行了比较。Kappa评分是根据高级、住院和高级与住院病理学家之间的观察者间一致性计算的。结果:天气报告发现169例(51.4%)病变病例最初未纳入历史报告。在高级病理学家中,64%的检查病变表现出良好的一致性(Kappa≥0.41),而在住院病理学家检查的病变中,Kappa≥0.45的病变仅占26%。特征明确的病变(如绒毛膜羊膜炎)表现出较高的一致性,不常见的病变和先前表现出较差一致性的病变表现出较低的一致性。讨论:天气报告是解决胎盘病理报告问题的一种建议方法。与叙述性报告相比,天气学报告通常识别出更多的病变,但临床意义尚不清楚。观察者之间的一致性可能与经验的差异有关。需要进一步努力提高胎盘病理报告的整体标准化。
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
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
59
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal covers the spectrum of disorders of early development (including embryology, placentology, and teratology), gestational and perinatal diseases, and all diseases of childhood. Studies may be in any field of experimental, anatomic, or clinical pathology, including molecular pathology. Case reports are published only if they provide new insights into disease mechanisms or new information.
×
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