PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11993701

Error in anatomic pathology.

Abstract

Error in anatomic pathology is a topic that is currently making the difficult transition from a problem peculiar to a subset of poorly trained or otherwise inadequate pathologists to a problem shared by the specialty of pathology. This transition will involve a number of difficult steps, including sorting error from both inherent diagnostic uncertainty andfrom variations in practice patterns from which no evidence-based best practice has emerged. Identification of error will require scientifically valid diagnostic gold standards, and in those areas of diagnosis without such a standard, the identification of and response to error will continue to be heavily influenced by hindsight bias and subjective opinion. The pathologist, like other physicians, has limited options to "make things right" following a significant error The silver lining is that many errors have the potential to prompt changes that will prevent future patient harm. Unfortunately, a dysfunctional legal system that values punishment and transfer of assets over future improvements in health care has wrung much of the positive potential out of error, leaving only the damaged patient and damaged pathologist.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Foucar. 2001. Error in anatomic pathology.. https://doi.org/10.1309/ddkv-e4yp-cj5q-3m4v

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗