The variation in usage between pathologists (ranging from less than 5% to over 35%) is also an issue of concern

with regard to both quality and consistency of communication and may warrant monitoring. Expressing a level of uncertainty out of habit or extreme caution when none is truly present dilutes the value of the phrase when perspicuity is warranted or essential. Not surprisingly, biopsies accounted for nearly two-thirds selleckchem of the instances of use, and the majority of these were questions of malignancy or dysplasia, areas well known to be prone to interpretive variability. Medical disorders however, also accounted for a significant number of cases (44%) which seems to be reflective of imperfect or overlapping histopathologic criteria for entities such as chemical gastropathy, inflammatory bowel disease, or the many inflammatory dermatoses. We considered a number of potential reasons commonly asserted to be associated with a hedged diagnosis. Analysis of reporting pathologists’ usage of uncertainty phrases by both age and gender revealed no statistically significant differences. This refutes the notion that expression of uncertainty is correlated with lack of experience or even more archaically, with the gender of the pathologist. Our data does not support

either of these ideas. Other possible rationales for expressions of uncertainty in diagnostic lines may include Talazoparib research buy contradictory or low probability staining results, lack of or inconsistent clinical information, uncertain criteria in the medical literature, quantity of sample or abnormality, and possibly a desire to avoid legal liability for an over- or under-stated diagnosis. These latter motives were not fully investigated in our study but may bear further scrutiny. While acknowledging that our method of sampling (written survey given at tumor boards) has limitations, including potential sample bias and response bias; we feel that this method was the most time and cost effective

way to get a cross sectional study of clinicians at all levels of training and in a wide variety of specialties. Our questionnaire design incorporated Carteolol HCl elements of customization and presentation randomization to limit these biases. Overall, we found that the phrases “consistent with”, “highly suspicious”, and “favor” are perceived to be associated with more certainty in the diagnosis. The latter term is a surprise to be included in this group since it is regularly interpreted by pathologists as less certain than the other two and quite similar to “suggestive of”. But the surgical group ranked it more certain than “highly suspicious” by almost 10 percentage points. The phrases “suggestive of”, “worrisome for”, and “indefinite for” were all less certain.