Phraseology in pathology reports. A comparative study of interpretation among pathologists and surgeons

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 79-81

  Attanoos, R L ^a   Bull, A D ^a   Douglas Jones, A G ^a   Fligelstone, L J ^a   Semararo, D ^b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b DERBYSHIRE ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Communication; Phraseology; Surgical reports

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INFORMATION; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SURGEON;

EID: 0030025009     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.49.1.79     Document Type: Article

References (4)

1. Ramsay AD, Gallagher PJ. Local audit of surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:476-82.
2. Campbell F, Griffiths DFR. Quantitative audit of the content of histopathology reports. J Clin Pathol 1994;47:360-1.
3. Allen RE (ed). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 8th edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press Publications, 1990.
4. Department of Health and Royal College of Pathologists Working Group. Pathology Reporting in Breast Caner Screening Draft Guidance. London: Royal College of Pathologists, 1989.