Diagnostic surgical pathology: The importance of second opinion in a developing country

Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association

Volumn 54, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 306-311

  Ahmed, Z ^a   Yaqoob, N ^a   Muzaffar, S ^a   Kayani, N ^a   Pervez, S ^a   Hasan, S H ^a  

^a AGA KHAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Pakistan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH ROUTE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PAKISTAN; PATHOLOGICAL ANATOMY; REVIEW;

BONE AND BONES; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; GRANULOMATOUS DISEASE, CHRONIC; HUMANS; LIVER; LYMPH NODES; LYMPHOMA, NON-HODGKIN; NEOPLASMS; PAKISTAN; PANCREAS; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SALIVARY GLANDS; TUBERCULOSIS;

EID: 4043148541     PISSN: 00309982     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. Tomaszewski JE, Bear HD, Connally JA, et al Consensus conference on second opinions in diagnostic anatomic pathology. Who, what and when. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:329-35.
2. Consultation in surgical pathology. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Am J Surg Pathol 1993;17:743-5.
3. Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effects of inter institution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995;119:514-17.
4. Gupta D, Layfield LJ. Prevalence of inter institutional anatomic pathology slide review: a survey of current practice. Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24:280-4.
5. Kronz JD, Westera WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital Cancer 1999;86:2426-35.
6. Lind AC, Bewtra C, Healy JC, et al. Prospective peer review in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;104:560-6.
7. Malhotra R, Massimi G, Woda BA. Inter institutional surgical pathology consultation and its role in patient management. Mod Pathol 1996;9:(165 A) 1-2.
8. Ackerman AB Discordance among expert pathologists in diagnosis of melanocytic neoplasms. Hum Pathol 1996;27:1115-16.
9. Harris M, Hartley AI, Blair V, et al. Sarcomas in north west England: I Histopathological peer review. Br J Cancer 1991:64: 315-20.
10. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Mankarah A, et al. Inter institutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology I: cancer in endometrial curettings and biopsies. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1998;17:36-41.
11. Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Mankarah A, et al. Inter institutional surgical pathology review is gynecologic oncology II: endometrial cancer in hysterectomy specimens. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1998;17:42-5.
12. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second opinion pathology: review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol 1996;20:851-7.
13. Kim H, Zelman RJ, Fox MA, et al. Pathology panel for lymphoma clinical studies: a comprehensive analysis of cases accumulated since its inception. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982;68:43-67.
14. Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GN, et al. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer 1997;19:796-803.