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}
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.
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.