| Title |
Digital slide viewing for primary reporting in gastrointestinal pathology: a validation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virchows Archiv, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00428-015-1780-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maurice B. Loughrey, Paul J. Kelly, Oisin P. Houghton, Helen G. Coleman, Joseph P. Houghton, Anne Carson, Manuel Salto-Tellez, Peter W. Hamilton |
| Abstract |
Despite the increasing availability of digital slide viewing, and numerous advantages associated with its application, a lack of quality validation studies is amongst the reasons for poor uptake in routine practice. This study evaluated primary digital pathology reporting in the setting of routine subspecialist gastrointestinal pathology, commonplace in most tissue pathology laboratories and representing one of the highest volume specialties in most laboratories. Individual digital and glass slide diagnoses were compared amongst three pathologists reporting in a gastrointestinal subspecialty team, in a prospective series of 100 consecutive diagnostic cases from routine practice in a large teaching hospital laboratory. The study included a washout period of at least 6 months. Discordant diagnoses were classified, and the study evaluated against recent College of American Pathologists (CAP) recommendations for evaluating digital pathology systems for diagnostic use. The study design met all 12 of the CAP recommendations. The 100 study cases generated 300 pairs of diagnoses, comprising 100 glass slide diagnoses and 100 digital diagnoses from each of the three study pathologists. 286 of 300 pairs of diagnoses were concordant, representing intraobserver concordance of 95.3 %, broadly comparable to rates previously published in this field. In ten of the 14 discordant pairs, the glass slide diagnosis was favoured; in four cases, the digital diagnosis was favoured, but importantly, the 14 discordant intraobserver diagnoses were considered to be of minor clinical significance. Interobserver, or viewing modality independent, concordance was found in 94 of the total of 100 study cases, providing a comparable baseline discordance rate expected in any second viewing of pathology material. These overall results support the safe use of digital pathology in primary diagnostic reporting in this setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,336,434
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Virchows Archiv
#1,271
of 1,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,661
of 265,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virchows Archiv
#19
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,947 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.