Search

Surgical pathology reports may undergo revisions broadly categorized as addenda (supplementary information) or amendments (changes to finalized reports). Amendments indicate potential flaws in the diagnostic process and serve as important indicators of vulnerabilities in the histopathology workflow. This study analyzed the frequency and distribution of amendments in surgical pathology reports over 8 years to identify patterns highlighting opportunities for improvement. Surgical biopsies, excisions, and resections were included; cytology and molecular tests were excluded. Amended reports were categorized using previously used taxonomy documented in literature. Defects were classified as misinterpretations, misidentifications, defective specimens, or defective reports. Of 101,355 reports, 155 (0.15 %) were signed out with amendments. The amendment rate was approximately 1-2 cases per 1000 reports annually. Misinterpretations accounted for the majority (52 %) of amended reports, with undercalls (62 %) and overcalls (27 %) being predominant subtypes. Tumor staging was amended in 57 (37 %) cases, with 30 being upstaged and 11 downstaged clinically. The highest number of misinterpretation defects occurred in head and neck (36 %) and breast (21 %) specimens. Misinterpretation defects were present in 53 % of malignant cases versus 42 % of benign cases. In 18 cases, there were significant changes in pathological diagnosis (14 major and 4 minor). A standard taxonomy categorizing report defects is crucial for measuring and improving quality control. Accurate pathology reporting impacts patient care and guides workflow improvements. This taxonomy enables us to track variations and deficiencies in our pathology reporting processes in a reproducible way across the department., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The literature on scientific publication errors in medical research is limited, and no studies on emergency medicine publications have been conducted yet. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of the publication errors in emergency medicine literature., Methods: This bibliometric study reviewed intervened publication errors in the manuscripts of seven high-impact emergency medicine journals from 2000 to 2020, covering twenty years, and evaluated the corrections in the forms of an erratum, corrigendum, addendum, and retracted papers. The detected publication error rate and the trend, error severity, and error types were calculated., Results: We detected 257 intervened scientific papers consisting of 251 corrections due to one or more publication errors and six retractions. Authors were the primary source of the errors (93.2%). Most of the errors were in the author attribution section (40.5%). The published errors of 7.2% had an impact on the paper's conclusion. Simple typographic errors were the most common error type (62.5%). The corrected publication error rate was 1.3%, with a steady trend over the twenty years., Conclusions: Publications errors are inevitable, but it is possible to minimize them. The number of corrections in emergency medicine literature is at a low rate and show many similarities with the previous literature., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

An addendum to the Introduction of Cole et al. [(2017), Acta Cryst. D73, 234-239] is made to recognize the work of Bricogne, Smart and others in the development of methods to make use of Cambridge Structural Database data in protein structure solution.

The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E6 - good clinical practice (GCP) (R2) addendum - was released in 2016 to encourage implementation of improved approaches for the management of clinical trials. The changes in different sections include new approaches - quality management system, risk-based monitoring with emphasis on human subject protection, and data integrity. The article discusses challenges in adoption and implementation of the changes in ICH GCP guideline for clinical trial stakeholders., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest.