This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care, Other  • Diagnosis  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Dermatol. 2002;138:684-685.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

SOLVING CLINICAL problems begins with the determination of the nature of a diseased condition—a diagnosis. Once the diagnosis is established, a logical plan of action can be formulated and acted upon to resolve the abnormal condition. McGinnis et al,¹ in this issue of the ARCHIVES, examined via a retrospective study, biopsy specimens from patients who were referred to their clinic for management of melanocytic tumors. They were interested in determining the concordance of diagnoses between the referring pathologist and the consultant pathologist at their institution, and whether a change in diagnosis would have an effect on the treatment. They found 11% of 5136 specimens had a significant change from the referral diagnosis with 1.2% being changed from malignant to benign and 1.1% from benign to malignant. The other 8% had either an upgrade or downgrade in severity sufficient to change management. Reexcision specimens were also reviewed; there was a change . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Pathology Review of Cases Presenting to a Multidisciplinary Pigmented Lesion Clinic
Karen S. McGinnis, Stuart R. Lessin, David E. Elder, DuPont Guerry IV, Lynn Schuchter, Michael Ming, and Rosalie Elenitsas
Arch Dermatol. 2002;138(5):617-621.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

How Reliable Is That Pathology Report?
Journal Watch Dermatology 2002;2002:3-3.
FULL TEXT