Showing papers by "Stephen S. Raab published in 1998"
TL;DR: Histological examination of intervertebral disc specimens is cost beneficial only if there is a significant preoperative clinical diagnosis, and no cost-benefit analysis of this practice was made.
Abstract: Object. Given the virtual absence of histologically detected, clinically unsuspected disease in intervertebral disc specimens, some authors have advocated that histological examination be discontinued. However, the examination of intervertebral disc specimens remains common practice in most pathology laboratories. No cost—benefit analysis of this practice has been made; therefore, the authors' goal in this study was perform such an analysis. Methods. Using the University of Iowa surgical pathology database, 1109 patients who had undergone a laminectomy were identified retrospectively. These cases were classified into four categories based on the patients' preoperative clinical diagnosis and final histopathological diagnosis: insignificant clinical diagnosis/insignificant pathological diagnosis (ICIP), significant clinical diagnosis/insignificant pathological diagnosis (SCIP), significant clinical diagnosis/significant pathological diagnosis (SCSP), and insignificant clinical diagnosis/significant patholog...
19 citations
TL;DR: These guidelines were approved by the governing boards of the following six societies represented in the Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies: American Society of Cytopathology (ASCT), ASC, ASC, College of American Pathologists (CAP), IAC, and Papanicolaou Society of Cyclophysics (PSC).
Abstract: These guidelines were approved by the governing boards of the following six societies represented in the Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies: American Society for Cytotechnology (ASCT), American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP), American Society of Cytopathology (ASC), College of American Pathologists (CAP), International Academy of Cytology (IAC), and Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) The proposed guidelines as written reflect the current status of technologies in early 1997 These guidelines may evolve over time as newer technologies are developed Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:371–376 © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc
10 citations
TL;DR: These guidelines were approved by the governing boards of the following six societies represented in the Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies: American Society forCytotechnology (ASCT), American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP), American society of Cytopathology (ASC), College of American Pathologists(CAP), International Academy of Cytologists (IAC), and Papanicolaou Society of Cy topathology(PSC).
Abstract: These guidelines were approved by the governing boards of the following six societies represented in the Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies: American Society for Cytotechnology (ASCT), American Society of Clinical Pathologists (ASCP), American Society of Cytopathology (ASC), College of American Pathologists (CAP), International Academy of Cytology (IAC), and Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC). The proposed guidelines as written reflect the current status of technologies in early 1997. These guidelines may evolve over time as newer technologies are developed. Diagn. Cytopathol. 1998;18:371–376. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
7 citations