48,830
edits
Difference between revisions of "Pathology reports"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Uncertainty
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
====Uncertainty==== | ====Uncertainty==== | ||
*Uncertainty in reports can be conveyed with various terms. | *Uncertainty in reports can be conveyed with various terms. | ||
*There is no standard but the interpretation (by clinicians and pathologists) of various | *There is no standard but the interpretation (by clinicians and pathologists) of various phrases have been compared by Lindley ''et al.'' using a scale of 0 (uncertain) to 100 (certain):<ref name=pmid24939143>{{Cite journal | last1 = Lindley | first1 = SW. | last2 = Gillies | first2 = EM. | last3 = Hassell | first3 = LA. | title = Communicating diagnostic uncertainty in surgical pathology reports: disparities between sender and receiver. | journal = Pathol Res Pract | volume = 210 | issue = 10 | pages = 628-33 | month = Oct | year = 2014 | doi = 10.1016/j.prp.2014.04.006 | PMID = 24939143 }}</ref> | ||
**''Cannot rule out'' (55) and ''indefinite for ...'' (52) convey the highest level of uncertainty among attending clinicians. | **''Cannot rule out'' (55) and ''indefinite for ...'' (52) convey the highest level of uncertainty among attending clinicians. | ||
**''Suggestive of ...'' (57) conveys a lesser level of uncertainty. | **''Suggestive of ...'' (57) conveys a lesser level of uncertainty. | ||
**''Consistent with ...'' (76) seems to be ignored by many. | **''Consistent with ...'' (76) seems to be ignored by many. | ||
====Abbreviations==== | ====Abbreviations==== | ||
*[[Abbreviations]] should not be used, e.g. [[LEEP]] should be written-out as ''loop electrosurgical excision procedure''. | *[[Abbreviations]] should not be used, e.g. [[LEEP]] should be written-out as ''loop electrosurgical excision procedure''. | ||