ArticleScientific reports2025
Discrepancies between pathologists and clinicians in interpretation of diagnostic uncertainty in surgical pathology reports.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pathologists frequently express diagnostic uncertainty in pathology reports, but such expressions may be interpreted differently by clinicians, potentially influencing patient management. This study evaluated how clinicians and pathologists interpret commonly used uncertain phrases in pathology reports and explored factors that influence the degree of certainty conveyed. A two-phase cross-sectional survey was conducted in Jordan. In the first phase, pathologists assessed the level of certainty associated with diagnostic phrases and identified key factors guiding their wording choices. In the second phase, clinicians evaluated the same phrases and reported on the usefulness of different communication methods and comment sections in reports. The results revealed significant variability in interpretation between and within both professional groups. Pathologists' use of uncertain language was primarily influenced by sample cellularity and diagnostic implications. These findings highlight the importance of improving clarity in pathology reporting and fostering direct communication between clinicians and pathologists to enhance shared understanding and ensure appropriate clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.