Key result
Current muscle biopsy reports show widespread variability in clinical features and pertinent histologic findings.
Why the study?
There is no current standard among myopathologists for reporting muscle biopsy findings, leading to variability in clinical and histologic data reporting.
Does a standardized common data element (CDE) format improve the uniformity and interpretability of muscle biopsy reports?
Observational (n=51)
Does a standardized common data element (CDE) format improve the uniformity and interpretability of muscle biopsy reports?
A standardized format for muscle biopsy reporting using common data elements is proposed to improve uniformity and support clinical care and research.
May standardize muscle biopsy reports for trials; leaves open whether it improves research utility or clinical outcomes.
CONTEXT: There is no current standard among myopathologists for reporting muscle biopsy findings. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke has recently launched a common data element (CDE) project to standardize neuromuscular data collected in clinical reports and to facilitate their use in research. OBJECTIVE: To develop a more-uniform, prospective reporting tool for muscle biopsies, incorporating the elements identified by the CDE project, in an effort to improve reporting and educational resources. DESIGN: The variation in current biopsy reporting practice was evaluated through a study of 51 muscle biopsy reports from self-reported diagnoses of genetically confirmed or undiagnosed muscle disease from the Congenital Muscle Disease International Registry. Two reviewers independently extracted data from deidentified reports and entered them into the revised CDE format to identify what was missing and whether or not information provided on the revised CDE report (complete/incomplete) could be successfully interpreted by a neuropathologist. RESULTS: Analysis of the data highlighted showed (1) inconsistent reporting of key clinical features from referring physicians, and (2) considerable variability in the reporting of pertinent positive and negative histologic findings by pathologists. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a format for muscle-biopsy reporting that includes the elements in the CDE checklist and a brief narrative comment that interprets the data in support of a final interpretation. Such a format standardizes cataloging of pathologic findings across the spectrum of muscle diseases and serves emerging clinical care and research needs with the expansion of genetic-testing therapeutic trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dastgir et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Genetically confirmed or undiagnosed muscle disease (n=51). Revised CDE format for muscle biopsy reporting vs. Current biopsy reporting practice was evaluated on Inconsistent reporting of key clinical features and variability in reporting of histologic findings. Analysis of 51 muscle biopsy reports revealed inconsistent reporting of key clinical features and considerable variability in the reporting of pertinent histologic findings by pathologists.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: