The "Big Dog" Effect: Variability assessing the causes of error in diagnoses of patients with lung cancer

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 24, Issue 18, 2006, Pages 2808-2814

  Raab, Stephen S ^a   Meier, Frederick A ^a   Zarbo, Richard J ^a   Jensen, D Chris ^a   Geisinger, Kim R ^a   Booth, Christine N ^a   Krishnamurti, Uma ^a   Stone, Chad H ^a   Janosky, Janine E ^a   Grzybicki, Dana M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRONCHUS BIOPSY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; ARTICLE; BRONCHUS; CLINICAL TRIAL; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LUNG; LUNG TUMOR; MULTICENTER STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY;

BRONCHI; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; LUNG; LUNG NEOPLASMS; OBSERVER VARIATION;

EID: 33745519686     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.3661     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al: Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnosis. Cancer 104:2205-2213, 2005
2. Clary JM, Silverman JF, Liu Y, et al: Cytohistologic discrepancies: A mean to improve pathology practice and patient outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol 117:567-573, 2002
3. Jones BA, Novis DA: Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22,439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 120:523-531, 1996
4. Joste NE, Crum CP, Cibas ES: Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology: Experience with 1,582 paired cases. Am J Clin Pathol 103:32-34, 1995
5. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration: Clinical laboratory improvement amendments of 1988: final rule, 57 Federal Register 7146. 1992, codified at 42 CFR §493
6. Raab SS: Improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. Clin Lab Med 24:849-863, 2004
7. . Vrbin CM, Grzybicki DM, Zaleski MS, et al: Variability in cytologic-histologic correlation practiced and implications on patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med 129:893-898, 2005
8. Cicchetti DV: Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284-290, 1994
9. Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159-174, 1977
10. Leape LL: A systems analysis approach to medical error. J Eval Clin Pract 3:213-222, 1997
11. Leape LL, Berwick DM: Five years after to err is human: What have we learned? JAMA 293:2384-2390, 2005
12. Waring JJ: Beyond blame: Cultural barriers to medical incident reporting. Soc Sci Med 60:1927-1935, 2005
13. Wakefield BJ, Blegen MA, Uden-Holman T, et al: Organizational culture, continuous quality improvement, and medication administration error reporting. Am J Med Qual 16:128-134, 2001
14. Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Campbell M, et al: Research designs for studies evaluating the effectiveness of change and improvement strategies. Qual Saf Health Care 12:47-52, 2003
15. Nodit L, Balassanian R, Sudilovsky D, et al: Improving the quality of cytology diagnosis: Root cause analysis for errors in bronchial washing and brushing specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 124:883-893, 2005
16. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB: Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol 46:423-429, 1993
17. Lantz CA, Nebenzahl E: Behavior and interpretation of the statistic: Resolution of the two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 49:431-434, 1996
18. Nelson JC, Pepe MS: Statistical description of interrater variability in ordinal ratings. Stat Methods Med Res 9:475-496, 2000
19. Llewellyn H: Observer variation, dysplasia grading, and HPV typing: A review: Am J Clin Pathol 114:S21-35, 2000
20. Leslie KO, Fechner RE, Kempson RL: Second opinions in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 106.S58-S64, 1996
21. Page DL, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, et al: When and to what end do pathologists agree? J Natl Cancer Inst 90:88-89, 1998
22. Scott MA, Lagios MD, Axelsson K, et al: Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Reproducibility of histological subtype analysis. Hum Pathol 28:967-973, 1997
23. Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, et al: Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. Am J Surg Pathol 24:651-659, 2000
24. Bethwaite P, Smith N, Delahung B, et al: Reproducibility of new classification schemes for the pathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol 51:450-454, 1998
25. Sloane JP, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al: Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists in categorizing ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five classifications: European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology. Hum Pathol 29:1056-1062, 1998