Dermatology 2013

Notes: Brewer, Ann Chang

Endly, Dawnielle C

Henley, Jill

Amir, Mahsa

Sampson, Blake P

Moreau, Jacqueline F

Dellavalle, Robert P

eng

2013/09/27 06:00

JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Nov;149(11):1300-4. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.5517.

URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24067948

Author Address: College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Phoenix.

 

 

Reference Type:  Journal Article

Record Number: 4389Author: Brick, K. E., Sluzevich, J. C., Cappel, M. A., DiCaudo, D. J., Comfere, N. I. and Wieland, C. N.

Year: 2013

Title: Comparison of virtual microscopy and glass slide microscopy among dermatology residents during a simulated in-training examination

Journal: J Cutan Pathol

Volume: 40

Issue: 9

Pages: 807-11

Date: Sep

Short Title: Comparison of virtual microscopy and glass slide microscopy among dermatology residents during a simulated in-training examination

Alternate Journal: Journal of cutaneous pathology

ISSN: 1600-0560 (Electronic)

0303-6987 (Linking)

DOI: 10.1111/cup.12189

Accession Number: 23808673

Keywords: Dermatology/*education

*Education, Medical, Continuing

Female

Humans

Male

Microscopy/methods

Skin Diseases/*diagnosis

*User-Computer Interface

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Virtual microscopy is increasingly being used in dermatopathology educational settings. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to evaluate diagnostic accuracy and attitudes between virtual microscopy and traditional glass slide microscopy among dermatology residents. METHODS: A 48-question dermatopathology examination was administered to 35 dermatology residents at three different dermatology residency training sites during the 2011-2012 academic year with half (n = 24) of the questions using the gold standard of glass slide microscopy and half (n = 24) using whole, scanned virtual slides. Correct number of questions using glass slides and virtual slides was evaluated. Participants were surveyed regarding previous experience with digital slide imaging; quality, ease of use, and speed of slide review; and overall microscopy preferences. RESULTS: Overall, diagnostic accuracy was better with glass slides than virtual slides (p = 0.01). However, no statistically significant difference was found in diagnostic accuracy of first-year trainees (p > 0.99) or trainees with exposure to virtual microscopy greater than two times per month (p = 0.27). There was no overall personal preference for glass slide vs. virtual microscopy. LIMITATIONS: Different cases and questions were used for glass slides and virtual microscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy with virtual microscopy is dependent on year of residency training and prior experience with virtual microscopy.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295