Table 2 |
|
|
Clinical research form |
|
|
Scan quality |
Explanation of the possible answers |
|
|
|
|
1-Unacceptable |
critical deficiences (out of focus, missing scan) |
|
2-Poor |
major deficiences (large areas out of focus, missing parts) |
|
3-Adequate |
region of interests are proper, minor deficiences |
|
4-Good |
region of interests are focused, good color fidelity, minor deficiences |
|
5-Excellent |
whole material is focused, good color fidelity |
|
The reason of dissatisfaction with scan quality |
Polar questions |
|
Important areas of the slide are out of focus |
(y/n) |
|
Incomplete scan |
(y/n) |
|
The color fidelity is poor |
(y/n) |
|
Other |
(free text) |
|
Diagnostic confidence |
Explanation of the possible answers |
|
1-Uncertain |
consultation should be requested, no definite idea of diagnosis |
|
2-Likely |
consultation should be requested for confirmation |
|
3-Confident |
no consultation required |
|
The reason of diagnostic uncertainty is due to |
Polar questions |
|
Case complexity |
(y/n) |
|
Poor image quality |
(y/n) |
|
|
|
|
Fónyad et al. Diagnostic Pathology 2012 7:35 doi:10.1186/1746-1596-7-35 |
|