Utility of an infectious and tropical disease histopathology diagnostic review service

Résumé fourni par la source

AIM: To assess the utility of a London-based infectious and tropical disease histopathology diagnostic review service. METHODS: The original and specialist review histopathology reports of 457 samples from over 3 years of referrals were compared retrospectively. RESULTS: Overall 329 (72.0%) showed no significant difference; 34 (7.4%) showed a non-clinically significant difference; and 94 (20.6%) showed a clinically significant difference. Of the 94 clinically significant discrepancies, 46 (48.9%) were incorrectly suspected infections; 19 (20.2%) were missed infections; 8 (8.5%) were different infections; and in 20 (21.3%), the specialist review yielded more specific identification of an organism or a more correct assessment of its viability. CONCLUSIONS: A review of histopathology cases by an infectious disease (ID) histopathology referral centre has yielded a 20.6% clinically significant error rate. Measures to improve training in ID histopathology in the UK are discussed.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.