JVDI Advertisement
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation Vol. 19 Issue 4, 439-443
Copyright © 2007 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wobeser, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by Allen, A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wobeser, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by Allen, A. L.

Brief Communication

Agreement among surgical pathologists evaluating routine histologic sections of digits amputated from cats and dogs

Bruce K. Wobeser, Beverly A. Kidney, Barbara E. Powers, Stephen J. Withrow, Monique N. Mayer, Maria T. Spinato and Andrew L. Allen1

Correspondence: 1Corresponding Author: Andrew L. Allen, Department of Veterinary Pathology, Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, 52 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B4 Canada. andrew.allen{at}usask.ca

Agreement among pathologists interpreting histologic specimens is an area of interest within human pathology, but little work in this area has been reported in the veterinary literature. Agreement among pathologists evaluating routine histologic sections of amputated digits from cats and dogs submitted to multiple diagnostic centers was examined. Histologic sections from surgical specimens were reviewed in a blinded fashion by two pathologists, and a comparison to the original diagnosis, as stated in the diagnostic report, was recorded. A total of 513 cases were reviewed, and complete agreement was reached in 409 (79.7%). Of the 104 instances of disagreement, 77 (74.0%) were considered to be of clinical significance. The diagnosis of keratoacanthoma was disagreed with in 19 of 21 diagnoses (90.4%). No other individual diagnosis was similarly disputed. The overall level of disagreement is large and is similar to that reported in human pathology and suggests that further study of this issue would be useful in veterinary pathology.

Key Words: Diagnostic agreement • histopathology • keratoacanthoma






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc.