哪些因素会影响细胞病理学家对病例报告的信心?

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PATHOLOGY
Harriet Evans, Peter K Kimani, Louise Hiller, Yee Wah Tsang, Shatrughan Sah, Kishore Gopalakrishnan, Clinton Boyd, Maurice B Loughrey, Paul J Kelly, David P Boyle, David Clark, Ian O Ellis, Mohammad Ilyas, Emad Rakha, Adam Bickers, Ian S D Roberts, Maria F Soares, Desley A H Neil, Janet A Dunn, Ayesha Azam, David Snead
{"title":"哪些因素会影响细胞病理学家对病例报告的信心?","authors":"Harriet Evans, Peter K Kimani, Louise Hiller, Yee Wah Tsang, Shatrughan Sah, Kishore Gopalakrishnan, Clinton Boyd, Maurice B Loughrey, Paul J Kelly, David P Boyle, David Clark, Ian O Ellis, Mohammad Ilyas, Emad Rakha, Adam Bickers, Ian S D Roberts, Maria F Soares, Desley A H Neil, Janet A Dunn, Ayesha Azam, David Snead","doi":"10.1007/s00428-024-03899-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Histopathology is a challenging interpretive discipline, and the level of confidence a pathologist has in their diagnosis is known to vary, which is conveyed descriptively in pathology reports. There has been little study to accurately quantify pathologists' diagnostic confidence or the factors that influence it. In this study involving sixteen pathologists from six NHS trusts, we assessed diagnostic confidence across multiple variables and four specialties. Each case was reported by four pathologists, with each pathologist reporting each case twice (on light microscopy (LM) and digital pathology (DP)). For each diagnosis, pathologists recorded their confidence on a 7-point Likert scale. This provided 16,187 diagnoses and associated confidence scores for analysis. All variables investigated were found to be significantly predictive of diagnostic confidence, except level of pathologist experience. Confidence was lower for difficult to report cases, cases where there was inter- and intra-pathologist variation in the diagnosis, and cases where the pathologist made an incorrect diagnosis. Confidence was higher, although nominally, for LM diagnoses than DP (rate ratio 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.18), p = 0.035), although results indicate pathologists are confident to report on DP. Lowest confidence scores were seen in areas of known diagnostic complexity and cases with quality issues. High confidence in incorrect diagnoses were almost invariably attributed to interpretive diagnostic differences which occurred across both rare and common lesions. The results highlight the value of external quality control schemes and the benefits of selective peer review when reporting.</p>","PeriodicalId":23514,"journal":{"name":"Virchows Archiv","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What factors influence cellular pathologists' confidence in case reporting?\",\"authors\":\"Harriet Evans, Peter K Kimani, Louise Hiller, Yee Wah Tsang, Shatrughan Sah, Kishore Gopalakrishnan, Clinton Boyd, Maurice B Loughrey, Paul J Kelly, David P Boyle, David Clark, Ian O Ellis, Mohammad Ilyas, Emad Rakha, Adam Bickers, Ian S D Roberts, Maria F Soares, Desley A H Neil, Janet A Dunn, Ayesha Azam, David Snead\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00428-024-03899-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Histopathology is a challenging interpretive discipline, and the level of confidence a pathologist has in their diagnosis is known to vary, which is conveyed descriptively in pathology reports. There has been little study to accurately quantify pathologists' diagnostic confidence or the factors that influence it. In this study involving sixteen pathologists from six NHS trusts, we assessed diagnostic confidence across multiple variables and four specialties. Each case was reported by four pathologists, with each pathologist reporting each case twice (on light microscopy (LM) and digital pathology (DP)). For each diagnosis, pathologists recorded their confidence on a 7-point Likert scale. This provided 16,187 diagnoses and associated confidence scores for analysis. All variables investigated were found to be significantly predictive of diagnostic confidence, except level of pathologist experience. Confidence was lower for difficult to report cases, cases where there was inter- and intra-pathologist variation in the diagnosis, and cases where the pathologist made an incorrect diagnosis. Confidence was higher, although nominally, for LM diagnoses than DP (rate ratio 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.18), p = 0.035), although results indicate pathologists are confident to report on DP. Lowest confidence scores were seen in areas of known diagnostic complexity and cases with quality issues. High confidence in incorrect diagnoses were almost invariably attributed to interpretive diagnostic differences which occurred across both rare and common lesions. The results highlight the value of external quality control schemes and the benefits of selective peer review when reporting.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-024-03899-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virchows Archiv","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-024-03899-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

组织病理学是一门极具挑战性的解释性学科,病理学家对其诊断的信心程度各不相同,这在病理报告中会有描述性的表达。准确量化病理学家的诊断信心或影响信心的因素的研究很少。在这项由来自六家英国国家医疗服务系统托管机构的十六位病理学家参与的研究中,我们对四个专科的多个变量进行了诊断信心评估。每个病例由四位病理学家报告,每位病理学家报告两次(光镜(LM)和数字病理(DP))。对于每项诊断,病理学家都用 7 点李克特量表记录了他们的可信度。这样就有了 16,187 项诊断和相关的可信度分数可供分析。研究发现,除了病理学家的经验水平外,所有调查变量都能显著预测诊断信心。对于难以报告的病例、病理学家之间和内部诊断存在差异的病例以及病理学家做出错误诊断的病例,可信度较低。病理学家对 LM 诊断的信任度虽然名义上高于 DP(比率比 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.18),p = 0.035),但结果表明病理学家有信心报告 DP。在已知诊断复杂的领域和存在质量问题的病例中,信心分数最低。对错误诊断的高置信度几乎总是归因于对罕见和常见病变的解释性诊断差异。这些结果凸显了外部质量控制计划的价值以及在报告时进行选择性同行评审的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

What factors influence cellular pathologists' confidence in case reporting?

What factors influence cellular pathologists' confidence in case reporting?

Histopathology is a challenging interpretive discipline, and the level of confidence a pathologist has in their diagnosis is known to vary, which is conveyed descriptively in pathology reports. There has been little study to accurately quantify pathologists' diagnostic confidence or the factors that influence it. In this study involving sixteen pathologists from six NHS trusts, we assessed diagnostic confidence across multiple variables and four specialties. Each case was reported by four pathologists, with each pathologist reporting each case twice (on light microscopy (LM) and digital pathology (DP)). For each diagnosis, pathologists recorded their confidence on a 7-point Likert scale. This provided 16,187 diagnoses and associated confidence scores for analysis. All variables investigated were found to be significantly predictive of diagnostic confidence, except level of pathologist experience. Confidence was lower for difficult to report cases, cases where there was inter- and intra-pathologist variation in the diagnosis, and cases where the pathologist made an incorrect diagnosis. Confidence was higher, although nominally, for LM diagnoses than DP (rate ratio 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.18), p = 0.035), although results indicate pathologists are confident to report on DP. Lowest confidence scores were seen in areas of known diagnostic complexity and cases with quality issues. High confidence in incorrect diagnoses were almost invariably attributed to interpretive diagnostic differences which occurred across both rare and common lesions. The results highlight the value of external quality control schemes and the benefits of selective peer review when reporting.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Virchows Archiv
Virchows Archiv 医学-病理学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
204
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Manuscripts of original studies reinforcing the evidence base of modern diagnostic pathology, using immunocytochemical, molecular and ultrastructural techniques, will be welcomed. In addition, papers on critical evaluation of diagnostic criteria but also broadsheets and guidelines with a solid evidence base will be considered. Consideration will also be given to reports of work in other fields relevant to the understanding of human pathology as well as manuscripts on the application of new methods and techniques in pathology. Submission of purely experimental articles is discouraged but manuscripts on experimental work applicable to diagnostic pathology are welcomed. Biomarker studies are welcomed but need to abide by strict rules (e.g. REMARK) of adequate sample size and relevant marker choice. Single marker studies on limited patient series without validated application will as a rule not be considered. Case reports will only be considered when they provide substantial new information with an impact on understanding disease or diagnostic practice.
×
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