1. Repositório Institucional da UFMG
  2. Publicações Científicas e Culturais
  3. Artigo de Periódico
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1843/60901
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorAnna Luíza Damaceno Araújopt_BR
dc.creatorFelipe Paiva Fonsecapt_BR
dc.creatorPablo Agustin Vargaspt_BR
dc.creatorOslei Paes de Almeidapt_BR
dc.creatorMárcio Ajudarte Lopespt_BR
dc.creatorAlan Roger dos Santos-Silvapt_BR
dc.creatorLady Paola Aristizábal Arboledapt_BR
dc.creatorMariana de Pauli Paglionipt_BR
dc.creatorJéssica Montenegro Fonsêcapt_BR
dc.creatorWagner Gomes-Silvapt_BR
dc.creatorAna Carolina Prado Ribeiropt_BR
dc.creatorThaís Bianca Brandãopt_BR
dc.creatorLuciana Estevam Simonatopt_BR
dc.creatorPaul Speightpt_BR
dc.creatorPablo Agustin Vargaspt_BR
dc.creatorCristhian Camilo Madrid Troconispt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-13T21:20:21Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-13T21:20:21Z-
dc.date.issued2019-01-26-
dc.citation.volume474pt_BR
dc.citation.issue3pt_BR
dc.citation.spage269pt_BR
dc.citation.epage287pt_BR
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-018-02519-zpt_BR
dc.identifier.issn09456317pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1843/60901-
dc.description.resumoValidation studies of whole slide imaging (WSI) systems produce evidence regarding digital microscopy (DM). This systematic review aimed to provide information about the performance of WSI devices by evaluating intraobserver agreement reported in previously published studies as the best evidence to elucidate whether DM is reliable for primary diagnostic purposes. In addition, this review delineates the reasons for the occurrence of discordant diagnoses. Scopus, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase were searched electronically. A total of 13 articles were included. The total sample of 2145 had a majority of 695 (32.4%) cases from dermatopathology, followed by 200 (9.3%) cases from gastrointestinal pathology. Intraobserver agreements showed an excellent concordance, with values ranging from 87% to 98.3% (κ coefficient range 0.8-0.98). Ten studies (77%) reported a total of 128 disagreements. The remaining three studies (23%) did not report the exact number and nature of disagreements. Borderline/challenging cases were the most frequently reported reason for disagreements (53.8%). Six authors reported limitations of the equipment and/or limited image resolution as reasons for the discordant diagnoses. Within these articles, the reported pitfalls were as follows: difficulties in the identification of eosinophilic granular bodies in brain biopsies; eosinophils and nucleated red blood cells; and mitotic figures, nuclear details, and chromatin patterns in neuropathology specimens. The lack of image clarity was reported to be associated with difficulties in the identification of microorganisms (e.g., Candida albicans, Helicobacter pylori, and Giardia lamblia). However, authors stated that the intraobserver variances do not derive from technical limitations of WSI. A lack of clinical information was reported by four authors as a source for disagreements. Two studies (15.4%) reported poor quality of the biopsies, specifically small size of the biopsy material or inadequate routine laboratory processes as reasons for disagreements. One author (7.7%) indicated the lack of immunohistochemistry and special stains as a source for discordance. Furthermore, nine studies (69.2%) did not consider the performance of the digital method-limitations of the equipment, insufficient magnification/limited image resolution-as reasons for disagreements. To summarize the pitfalls of digital pathology practice and better address the root cause of the diagnostic discordance, we suggest a Categorization for Digital Pathology Discrepancies to be used in further validations studies. Among 99 discordances, only 37 (37.3%) had preferred diagnosis rendered by means of WSI. The risk of bias and applicability concerns were judged with the QUADAS-2. Two studies (15.4%) presented an unclear risk of bias in the sample selection domain and 2 (15.4%) presented a high risk of bias in the index test domain. Regarding applicability, all studies included were classified as a low concern in all domains. The included studies were optimally designed to validate WSI for general clinical use, providing evidence with confidence. In general, this systematic review showed a high concordance between diagnoses achieved by using WSI and conventional light microscope (CLM), summarizes difficulties related to specific findings of certain areas of pathology-including dermatopathology, pediatric pathology, neuropathology, and gastrointestinal pathology-and demonstrated that WSI can be used to render primary diagnoses in several subspecialties of human pathology.pt_BR
dc.languageengpt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Minas Geraispt_BR
dc.publisher.countryBrasilpt_BR
dc.publisher.departmentFAO - DEPARTAMENTO DE CLÍNICApt_BR
dc.publisher.initialsUFMGpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofVirchows Archivpt_BR
dc.rightsAcesso Restritopt_BR
dc.subjectbusca dia 02 do 10 2023 fao clinica assunto revisão sistematicapt_BR
dc.subject.otherClinical diagnosispt_BR
dc.subject.otherSystematic reviewpt_BR
dc.subject.otherLaminspt_BR
dc.subject.otherMicroscopy, electronpt_BR
dc.titleThe performance of digital microscopy for primary diagnosis in human pathology: a systematic reviewpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
dc.url.externahttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00428-018-02519-zpt_BR
Appears in Collections:Artigo de Periódico

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show simple item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.