Preferences of clinical pathologists for probability‐modifying terms describing cytologic sample evaluations: A survey study

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundA recent study identified 7 probability ranges used by clinical pathologists and associated qualitative terms used in cytology reports. Clinicians and clinical pathologists agreed that limiting the number of terms could help enhance communication between clinical pathologists and clinicians. However, the preferred terms for each range remain undetermined.ObjectiveWe sought to determine a single term for each probability range that could be adopted by the global veterinary clinical pathology community.MethodClinical pathologists responded to a survey invitation distributed via the specialty listserv. Clinical pathologists were asked to rank previously identified terms for each probability range from “most preferred” to “least preferred.” An alternative term could be proposed if they preferred a term not included in the question. The preferences were summed by rank. Where first choice ranks were within 20% of each other, the 1st and 2nd choices were added. The term with the highest counts was chosen to represent the probability range.ResultsThe highest‐ranking terms corresponding to the probability ranges of 0%–20%, 20%–50%, 50%–65%, 65%–75%, 75%–85%, 85%–95%, and 95%–100% were “no evidence for,” “cannot rule out,” “possible,” “suspicious for,” “most likely,” “most consistent with,” and no modifier, respectively.ConclusionsWe have sampled clinical pathologists across the globe to rank terms in cytology reports associated with previously identified probability ranges to identify single qualitative terms for which there was the most agreement between clinicians and clinical pathologists. Our study provides the foundation for standardizing and limiting probability‐modifying terms to improve communication with clinicians.