Comparison of disagreement and amendment rates by tissue type and diagnosis: Identifying cases for directed blinded review

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 126, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 736-739

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a   Gould, Edwin W ^a  

^a BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Blinded review; Cytology; Errors; Quality assurance; Surgical pathology

Indexed keywords

ADENOMATOUS POLYP; BREAST; BREAST BIOPSY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CURETTAGE; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; ENDOCRINE GLAND; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; HYPERPLASIA; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 33750700820     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/DH4U0KT6QB01KR55     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false negative rate of rescreening Pap smears measured in a two arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer. 2001;93:103-110.
2. Renshaw AA. Re-screening in cervical cytology for quality control: when is bad data worse than no data at all or what works, what doesn't and why. Clin Lab Med. 2003;23:695-708.
3. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jiroutek MR, et al. Quantifying the value of in-house consultation in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:751-754.
4. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jiroutek MR, et al. Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:961-963.
5. Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Granter SR, et al. Agreement and error rates using blinded review to evaluate surgical pathology material. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:797-800.
6. Renshaw AA. Comparing methods to measure error in gynecologic cytology and surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130:626-629.
7. Trotter MJ, Bruecks AK. Interpretation of skin biopsies by general pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:1489-1492.
8. Weydert JA, De Young BR, Cohen MB. A preliminary diagnosis service provides prospective blinded dual review of all general surgical pathology cases in an academic practice. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:801-805.
9. Collins LC, Connolly JL, Page DL, et al. Diagnostic agreement in the evaluation of image-guided breast core needle biopsies: results from a randomized clinical trial. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28:126-131.
10. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Correlation of workload with disagreement and amendment rates in surgical pathology and nongynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:820-822.
11. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125:737-739.
12. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86:2426-2435.
13. Weir MM, Jan E, Colgan TJ. Interinstitutional pathology consultations: a reassessment. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:405-412.
14. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:459-466.