Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Tabular Versus Synoptic Reporting of Prostate Core Needle Biopsies

Tabular Versus Synoptic Reporting of Prostate Core Needle Biopsies Purpose: To compare synoptic versus tabular formats for reporting prostate core needle biopsy results. The format of a report can significantly affect the accuracy, speed, and preference with which a reader can retrieve information. Methods: We compared the performance of 20 nonpathologists in the identification of specific information in synoptic and tabular reports using a computerized quiz that measured both accuracy and speed. Results: Tabular formatting was significantly more accurate (97% v 93%; P = .001) and faster (mean normalized time, 0.74 +/- 0.40 v 0.99 + 0.52; P < .001) than synoptic formatting. The improvement in accuracy was a result of questions that involved combining results from two different biopsies (96% v 92%; P = .03). The improvement in speed was observed for both single-value questions (0.77 + 0.41 v 0.87 + 0.39; P = .03) and combination questions (0.73 + 0.40 v 1.05 + 0.56; P < .001). Data extraction from a tabular format into a structured data file using free text extraction on the basis of punctuation was 100% successful. Conclusion: Tabular reporting of prostate needle biopsies allows significantly faster and more accurate identification of data by the user, especially when the data involve combining data from several biopsies. The tabular format does not impact the ability to create structured data files. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics Wolters Kluwer Health

Tabular Versus Synoptic Reporting of Prostate Core Needle Biopsies

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wolters-kluwer-health/tabular-versus-synoptic-reporting-of-prostate-core-needle-biopsies-1jczDK8sUb

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wolters Kluwer Health
Copyright
(C) 2017 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
ISSN
2473-4276
DOI
10.1200/CCI.17.00027
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose: To compare synoptic versus tabular formats for reporting prostate core needle biopsy results. The format of a report can significantly affect the accuracy, speed, and preference with which a reader can retrieve information. Methods: We compared the performance of 20 nonpathologists in the identification of specific information in synoptic and tabular reports using a computerized quiz that measured both accuracy and speed. Results: Tabular formatting was significantly more accurate (97% v 93%; P = .001) and faster (mean normalized time, 0.74 +/- 0.40 v 0.99 + 0.52; P < .001) than synoptic formatting. The improvement in accuracy was a result of questions that involved combining results from two different biopsies (96% v 92%; P = .03). The improvement in speed was observed for both single-value questions (0.77 + 0.41 v 0.87 + 0.39; P = .03) and combination questions (0.73 + 0.40 v 1.05 + 0.56; P < .001). Data extraction from a tabular format into a structured data file using free text extraction on the basis of punctuation was 100% successful. Conclusion: Tabular reporting of prostate needle biopsies allows significantly faster and more accurate identification of data by the user, especially when the data involve combining data from several biopsies. The tabular format does not impact the ability to create structured data files.

Journal

JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics – Wolters Kluwer Health

Published: Jun 9, 2017

References

  • The Truthful Art: Data, Charts, and Maps for Communication
    Cairo A
  • The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
    Tufte ER
  • The Functional Art: An Introduction to Information Graphics and Visualizations
    Cairo A
  • Cancer case summaries
    College of American Pathologists
  • Commission on Laboratory Accreditation Laboratory Accreditation Program
    College of American Pathologists
  • Clinically relevant breast cancer reporting: Using process measures to improve anatomic pathology reporting
    Hammond EH; Flinner RL
  • What impact has the introduction of a synoptic report for rectal cancer had on reporting outcomes for specialist gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists
    Messenger DE; McLeod RS; Kirsch R
  • Interinstitutional assessment of colorectal carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of practice patterns from 532 laboratories and 15,940 reports
    Zarbo RJ
  • Adequacy of surgical pathology reporting of cancer: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 86 institutions
    Idowu MO; Bekeris LG; Raab S
  • Lung carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of over 8300 cases from 464 institutions
    Gephardt GN; Baker PB
  • Challenges and opportunities in the adoption of College of American Pathologists checklists in electronic format: Perspectives and experience of Reporting Pathology Protocols Project (RPP2) participant laboratories
    Hassell LA; Parwani AV; Weiss L
  • The impact of template format on the completeness of surgical pathology reports
    Renshaw SA; Mena-Allauca M; Touriz M
  • Standardized and structured histopathological evaluation of colorectal polyps: A practical checklist against the background of the new WHO classification [in German]
    Baretton GB; Tannapfel A; Schmitt W
  • Structured electronic template for histopathology reporting on colorectal carcinoma resections: Five-year follow-up shows sustainable long-term quality improvement
    Casati B; Bjugn R
  • Recent advances in standards for collaborative digital anatomic pathology
    Daniel C; Macary F; Rojo MG
  • Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population-based approach
    Srigley JR; McGowan T; Maclean A
  • The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas
    Cross SS; Feeley KM; Angel CA
  • Synoptic reporting improves histopathological assessment of pancreatic resection specimens
    Gill AJ; Johns AL; Eckstein R
  • The advantage of using a synoptic pathology report format for cutaneous melanoma
    Karim RZ; van den Berg KS; Colman MH
  • Synoptic pathology reporting for thyroid cancer: A review and institutional experience
    Lam E; Vy N; Bajdik C
  • Usefulness of a synoptic data tool for reporting of head and neck neoplasms based on the College of American Pathologists cancer checklists
    Kang HP; Devine LJ; Piccoli AL
  • Formatting pathology reports: Applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety
    Valenstein PN
  • Performance of a Web-based method for generating synoptic reports
    Renshaw MA; Renshaw SA; Mena-Allauca M
  • Reporting margin status in synoptic reports
    Renshaw AA; Mena-Allauca M; Gould EW
  • Reflex test reminders in required cancer synoptic templates decrease order entry error: An analysis of mismatch repair immunohistochemical orders to screen for Lynch syndrome
    Kilgore MR; McIlwain CA; Schmidt RA
  • Just say no to the use of no: Alternative terminology for improving anatomic pathology reports
    Renshaw MA; Gould EW; Renshaw A
  • Reporting Gleason grade/score in synoptic reports of radical prostatectomies
    Renshaw AA; Mena-Allauca M; Gould EW
  • College of American Pathologists cancer protocols: Optimizing format for accuracy and efficiency
    Strickland-Marmol LB; Muro-Cacho CA; Barnett SD
  • Comparison of accuracy and speed of information identification by non-pathologists in synoptic reports with different formats
    Renshaw AA; Gould EW
  • Specimen adequacy evaluation in gynecologic cytopathology: Current laboratory practice in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program and tentative guidelines for future practice
    Nielsen ML; Davey DD; Kline TS
  • F-shaped pattern for reading web content
    Nielsen Norman Group
  • The cost of synoptic reporting
    Renshaw AA; Gould EW
  • The feasibility of using natural language processing to extract clinical information from breast pathology reports
    Buckley JM; Coopey SB; Sharko J
  • Natural language processing in pathology: A scoping review
    Burger G; Abu-Hanna A; de Keizer N
  • Pathology report data extraction from relational database using R, with extraction from reports on melanoma of skin as an example
    Ye JJ
  • Extraction and analysis of discrete synoptic pathology report data using R
    Boag A