ReviewThe Journal of pathology2026
Practical considerations for pathologists when selecting digital pathology systems: an ESDIP guide.
Review in The Journal of pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
The implementation of digital pathology (DP) has been reported across academic, public, and private laboratory settings, providing valuable insights into workflow transformation. However, comparatively little guidance exists on how DP systems should be evaluated prior to acquisition and deployment. Given the substantial financial investment and long-term strategic implications of DP infrastructure, a structured and context-aware evaluation process is essential. In this practical guide, developed by the European Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology (ESDIP) https://www.esdipath.org/, we outline a comprehensive approach for the pre-deployment assessment of DP systems. Drawing on collective experience from multiple institutions and supported by relevant literature, we describe key parameters to consider when evaluating the core components of the DP ecosystem: whole slide scanners, image management systems, workstations, storage infrastructure, and laboratory information systems. We highlight methodological differences between large-scale multisite procurement processes and single-institution implementations, emphasising realistic workload testing, interoperability, and long-term scalability. By integrating technical and clinical perspectives, this guide aims to support pathology departments, IT teams, and institutional decision-makers in selecting DP solutions aligned with their specific institutional needs, infrastructure capabilities, and the future integration of computational pathology. © 2026 The Author(s). The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
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.