To diagnose Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection and its related mucosal injuries requires the histopathological analysis of gastric biopsies. The move from glass slides interpretation towards digital pathology implies technical choices to maintain the performances of histopathological diagnosis. The intra-rater agreement in assessing gastritis diagnostic criteria between glass slides, low resolution and high resolution digital slides in the subject of the present study. One hundred gastric biopsies were re-assessed by a single digestive pathologist on glass slides and digitalised slides at low resolution (ie, x20 magnification and single focus without z-stack) and high resolution (ie, x40 magnification with seven focus levels and z-stack) about the criteria of the updated Sydney system and the detection of HP. Inter-analyses agreement were very good (Kappa values>0.81) for every criteria but slightly inferior (ie, Kappa values<0.9) comparing glass slides interpretations with low resolution digital slides-based ones. Indeed, some HP infections were misdiagnosed using x20 magnification histochemical stained digitalised slides (p<0.05). At the opposite, anti-HP immunohistochemistry slides and/or x40 magnification digitalisation permitted to maintain almost perfect concordance in diagnosis (Kappa value>0.9). As mentioned in current guidelines, a high resolution x40 magnification digitalisation must be favoured in order to avoid some misdetection of microorganisms as HP.
- computer systems
- diagnostic techniques and procedures
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Handling editor Runjan Chetty.
Contributors Conception and design of the study, acquisition and analysis of data, drafting the manuscript and figures: AU.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.