4.0 Review

Recommendations for Pathology Peer Review

Journal

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 1118-1127

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0192623310383991

Keywords

audit trail; pathology; peer review; quality

Funding

  1. Society of Toxicologic Pathology
  2. European Society of Toxicologic Pathology
  3. Japanese Society of Toxicologic Pathology
  4. British Society of Toxicologic Pathologists
  5. French Society of Toxicologic Pathology
  6. Italian Society of Toxicologic and Experimental Pathology
  7. Society of Toxicologic Pathology-India
  8. Korean Society of Toxicologic Pathology
  9. Latin American Society of Toxicologic Pathology
  10. American College of Veterinary Pathologists

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pathology peer review verifies and improves the accuracy and quality of pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Pathology peer review is recommended when important risk assessment or business decisions are based on nonclinical studies. For pathology peer review conducted before study completion, the peer-review pathologist reviews sufficient slides and pathology data to assist the study pathologist in refining pathology diagnoses and interpretations. Materials to be reviewed are selected by the peer-review pathologist. Consultations with additional experts or a formal (documented) pathology working group may be used to resolve discrepancies. The study pathologist is solely responsible for the content of the final pathology data and report, makes changes resulting from peer-review discussions, initiates the audit trail for microscopic observations after all changes resulting from peer-review have been made, and signs the final pathologist's report. The peer-review pathologist creates a signed peer-review memo describing the peer-review process and confirming that the study pathologist's report accurately and appropriately reflects the pathology data. The study pathologist also may sign a statement of consensus. It is not necessary to archive working notes created during the peer-review process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available