Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKusta, Olsi
dc.contributor.authorRift, Charlotte Vestrup
dc.contributor.authorRisør, Torsten
dc.contributor.authorSantoni-Rugiu, Eric
dc.contributor.authorBrodersen, John
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-30T06:37:12Z
dc.date.available2023-01-30T06:37:12Z
dc.date.issued2022-09-06
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Digital pathology solutions are increasingly implemented for primary diagnostics in departments of pathology around the world. This has sparked a growing engagement on validation studies to evaluate the diagnostic performance of whole slide imaging (WSI) regarding safety, reliability, and accuracy. The aim of this review was to evaluate the performance of digital pathology for diagnostic purposes compared to light microscopy (LM) in human pathology, based on validation studies designed to assess such technologies.<p> <p>Methods In this systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed validation studies of WSI compared with LM. We included studies of diagnostic performance of WSI regarding diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) indicators, degree of overdiagnosis, diagnostic concordance, and observer variability as a secondary outcome. Overdiagnosis is (for example) detecting a pathological condition that will either not progress or progress very slowly. Thus, the patient will never get symptoms from this condition and the pathological condition will never be the cause of death. From a search comprising four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, encompassing the period 2010–2021, we selected and screened 12 peer-reviewed articles that fulfilled our selection criteria. Risk of bias was conducted through QUADAS-2 tool, and data analysis and synthesis were performed in a qualitative format. <p>Results We found that diagnostic performance of WSI was not inferior to LM for DTA indicators, concordance, and observer variability. The degree of overdiagnosis was not explicitly reported in any of the studies, while the term itself was used in one study and could be implicitly calculated in another. <p>Conclusion WSI had an overall high diagnostic accuracy based on traditional accuracy measurements; however, the degree of overdiagnosis is unknown.en_US
dc.identifier.citationKusta, Rift, Risør, Santoni-Rugiu, Brodersen. Lost in digitization – A systematic review about the diagnostic test accuracy of digital pathology solutions. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2022en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2116983
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpi.2022.100136
dc.identifier.issn2229-5089
dc.identifier.issn2153-3539
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/28404
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Pathology Informatics
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2022 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en_US
dc.titleLost in digitization – A systematic review about the diagnostic test accuracy of digital pathology solutionsen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)