Search PubMed⌕ 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↗

Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI.

Assessment of test bias is important to establish the construct validity of tests. Assessment of differential item functioning (DIF) is an important first step in this process. DIF is present when examinees from different groups have differing probabilities of success on an item, after controlling for overall ability level. Here, we present analysis of DIF in the Cognitive Assessment Screening Instrument (CASI) using data from a large cohort study of elderly adults. We developed an ordinal logistic regression modelling technique to assess test items for DIF. Estimates of cognitive ability were obtained in two ways based on responses to CASI items: using traditional CASI scoring according to the original test instructions as well as using item response theory (IRT) scoring. Several demographic characteristics were examined for potential DIF, including ethnicity and gender (entered into the model as dichotomous variables), and years of education and age (entered as continuous variables). We found that a disappointingly large number of items had DIF with respect to at least one of these demographic variables. More items were found to have DIF with traditional CASI scoring than with IRT scoring. This study demonstrates a powerful technique for the evaluation of DIF in psychometric tests. The finding that so many CASI items had DIF suggests that previous findings of differences between groups in cognitive functioning as measured by the CASI may be due to biased test items rather than true differences between groups. The finding that IRT scoring diminished the impact of DIF is discussed. Some preliminary suggestions for how to deal with items found to have DIF in cognitive tests are made. The advantages of the DIF detection techniques we developed are discussed in relation to other techniques for the evaluation of DIF.

Bias↗