Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 126, Issue 8, 2002, Pages 961-963

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a   Pinnar, Nat E ^a   Jiroutek, Michael R ^a   Young, Mary L ^a  

^a BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 0036674906     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Surgical pathology signout: Routine review of every case by a second pathologist
2. Quality assurance of histopathology diagnoses: A prospective audit of three thousand cases
3. Prospective peer review of surgical pathology
4. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care
5. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology: Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy
6. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital
7. Value of second opinion pathology review of endometrial cancer diagnosed on uterine curettings and biopsies
8. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice
9. Central pathology review in clinical trials for patients with malignant glioma
10. Discrepancies in diagnosis of neuroepithelial neoplasms: The San Francisco Bay Area adult glioma study
11. The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology
12. Significance of mild cervical cytologic atypia in a sexually transmitted disease clinic population
13. Rapid screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control: For how long should we rescreen?
14. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears: An improved method of quality control
15. An assessment of partial rescreening as an internal quality control method for cervical smears
16. The false negative rate of Pap smear screening as determined by rapid rescreening
17. Performance characteristics of rapid (30 second) prescreening: Implications for calculating the false-negative rate and comparison with other quality assurance techniques
18. Analysis of error in calculating the false negative rate for interpretation of cervicovaginal smears: The need to review abnormal cases
19. A practical problem with calculating the false negative rate of Papanicolaou smear interpretation by rescreening negative cases alone
20. The human false negative rate of rescreening in a two arm prospective clinical trial
21. Measuring and reporting errors in surgical pathology
22. A tour of UnifyPow: A SAS module/macro for sample-size analysis
23. Measuring and reporting errors in surgical pathology: Lessons from gynecologic cytology