首页> 外文期刊>Modern Pathology >Identifying and processing the gap between perceived and actual agreement in breast pathology interpretation
【24h】

Identifying and processing the gap between perceived and actual agreement in breast pathology interpretation

机译:识别和处理乳房病理学解释中感知到的和实际达成的协议之间的差距

获取原文
           

摘要

We examined how pathologists鈥?process their perceptions of how their interpretations on diagnoses for breast pathology cases agree with a reference standard. To accomplish this, we created an individualized self-directed continuing medical education program that showed pathologists interpreting breast specimens how their interpretations on a test set compared with a reference diagnosis developed by a consensus panel of experienced breast pathologists. After interpreting a test set of 60 cases, 92 participating pathologists were asked to estimate how their interpretations compared with the standard for benign without atypia, atypia, ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancer. We then asked pathologists their thoughts about learning about differences in their perceptions compared with actual agreement. Overall, participants tended to overestimate their agreement with the reference standard, with a mean difference of 5.5% (75.9% actual agreement; 81.4% estimated agreement), especially for atypia and were least likely to overestimate it for invasive breast cancer. Non-academic affiliated pathologists were more likely to more closely estimate their performance relative to academic affiliated pathologists (77.6 vs 48%; P=0.001), whereas participants affiliated with an academic medical center were more likely to underestimate agreement with their diagnoses compared with non-academic affiliated pathologists (40 vs 6%). Before the continuing medical education program, nearly 55% (54.9%) of participants could not estimate whether they would overinterpret the cases or underinterpret them relative to the reference diagnosis. Nearly 80% (79.8%) reported learning new information from this individualized web-based continuing medical education program, and 23.9% of pathologists identified strategies they would change their practice to improve. In conclusion, when evaluating breast pathology specimens, pathologists do a good job of estimating their diagnostic agreement with a reference standard, but for atypia cases, pathologists tend to overestimate diagnostic agreement. Many participants were able to identify ways to improve.
机译:我们检查了病理学家如何处理他们对乳腺病理病例诊断的理解如何与参考标准相一致的看法。为了实现这一目标,我们创建了个性化的自我指导的继续医学教育计划,该计划向病理学家展示乳腺标本,与经验丰富的乳腺病理学家共识小组开发的参考诊断相比,它们在测试仪上的解释如何。在解释了一套60例病例的测试结果之后,要求92名参与病理学家评估其解释与无异型性,非典型性,原位导管癌和浸润性癌的良性标准的比较。然后,我们询问病理学家关于了解自己的看法与实际共识之间的差异的想法。总体而言,参与者倾向于高估其与参考标准的一致性,平均差异为5.5%(实际一致性为75.9%;估计一致性为81.4%),尤其是对于非典型性患者,对于浸润性乳腺癌的评估可能性最低。与学术附属病理学家相比,非学术附属病理学家更可能更仔细地评估其表现(77.6 vs 48%; P = 0.001),而与非学术附属病理学家相比,与非附属科学病理学家相比,他们更容易低估其诊断的一致性。 -学术附属病理学家(40比6%)。在继续医学教育计划之前,将近55%(54.9%)的参与者无法估计他们相对于参考诊断是否会过度解释病例或对病例理解不足。将近80%(79.8%)的人报告从此个性化的基于Web的继续医学教育计划中学习新信息,而23.9%的病理学家确定了他们将改变其实践以改善自己的策略。总之,在评估乳腺病理标本时,病理学家会很好地估计他们与参考标准的诊断一致性,但是对于非典型病例,病理学家往往会高估诊断一致性。许多参与者能够确定改进方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号