Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and interobserver reliability of diagnosing and subtyping gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM) among general pathologists and pathology residents at a university hospital in Thailand, focusing on the challenges in the histopathologic evaluation of gastric IM for less experienced practitioners.
Methods: The study analyzed 44 non-neoplastic gastric biopsies, using a consensus diagnosis of gastrointestinal pathologists as the reference standard. Participants included 6 general pathologists and 9 pathology residents who assessed gastric IM and categorized its subtype (complete, incomplete, or mixed) on digital slides. After initial evaluations and receiving feedback, participants reviewed specific images of gastric IM, as agreed by experts. Following a one-month washout period, a reevaluation of the slides was conducted.
Results: Diagnostic accuracy, interobserver reliability, and time taken for diagnosis improved following training, with general pathologists showing higher accuracies than residents (median accuracy of gastric IM detection: 100 % vs. 97.7 %). Increased years of experience were associated with more IM detection accuracy (p-value<0.05). However, the overall median accuracy for diagnosing incomplete IM remained lower than for complete IM (86.4 % vs. 97.7 %). After training, diagnostic errors occurred in 6 out of 44 specimens (13.6 %), reported by over 40 % of participants. Errors involved omitting 5 slides with incomplete IM and 1 with complete IM, all showing a subtle presence of IM.
Conclusions: The study highlights the diagnostic challenges in identifying incomplete gastric IM, showing notable discrepancies in accuracy and interobserver agreement. It underscores the need for better diagnostic protocols and training to enhance detection and management outcomes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2024.152284 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!