4.0 Review

Recommendations for Pathology Peer Review

期刊

TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 1118-1127

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0192623310383991

关键词

audit trail; pathology; peer review; quality

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据