IN THIS issue of the Archives, 2 articles address the issue of interobserver variability in diagnostic pathology. Although such studies have been done for several decades, this field is only recently beginning to mature toward a systematic discipline with standardized principles and methods. It is still in a somewhat embryonic state. This editorial will address the general issue of interobserver variability and then analyze these 2 papers.
When there is interobserver variability in diagnostic pathology, it raises complex and emotional issues. The first reaction is usually to ask, "Who's right?"1 After all, a clear and reliable pathology report is needed to guide the management of the patient. Patient care must always be the first concern. The immediate corollary, "Who's wrong?" may raise questions about reliability and convey feelings of anxiety and distrust. If variability is common, especially among experts in research projects, there may be opinions that diagnostic
Cramer SF. Interobserver Variability in Dermatopathology. Arch Dermatol. 1997;133(8):1033–1036. doi:10.1001/archderm.1997.03890440117019
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: