Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Utility of an infectious and tropical disease histopathology diagnostic review service


Aim To assess the utility of a London-based infectious and tropical disease histopathology diagnostic review service.

Methods The original and specialist review histopathology reports of 457 samples from over 3 years of referrals were compared retrospectively.

Results Overall 329 (72.0%) showed no significant difference; 34 (7.4%) showed a non-clinically significant difference; and 94 (20.6%) showed a clinically significant difference. Of the 94 clinically significant discrepancies, 46 (48.9%) were incorrectly suspected infections; 19 (20.2%) were missed infections; 8 (8.5%) were different infections; and in 20 (21.3%), the specialist review yielded more specific identification of an organism or a more correct assessment of its viability.

Conclusions A review of histopathology cases by an infectious disease (ID) histopathology referral centre has yielded a 20.6% clinically significant error rate. Measures to improve training in ID histopathology in the UK are discussed.

  • histopathology
  • infections
  • clinical infectious diseases
  • diagnostics
  • laboratory management

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.