• 1
    Smith BD. Future of cancer incidence in the United States: Preparing for an older, more diversified nation. AJHO Newsletter, October 9, 2009, Accessed October 25, 2009.
  • 2
    Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
  • 3
    Committee on Quality and Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: a New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
  • 4
    Richardson, WC, Corrigan, J. The IOM Quality Initiative: A Progress Report at Year Six. IOM Newsletter, Volume I, Number I, Winter 2002, 17. Accessed November 17, 2009
  • 5
    Institute of Medicine. Envisioning the National Health Care Quality Report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
  • 6
    Beal AC, Co JPT, Dougherty D, et al. Quality measures for children's health care. Pediatrics. 2004; 113: 199209.
  • 7
    Berwick DM. A user's manual for the IOM's ‘Quality Chasm’ report. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002; 21: 8090.
  • 8
    Grzybicki DM, Raab SS, Janosky JE, et al. Anatomic pathology and patient safety: it's not an error: it's a diagnostic misadventure! Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 129: 167168.
  • 9
    Frable WJ. Surgical pathology—second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what's out there? Error or diagnostic variation? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006; 130: 620625.
  • 10
    Manion E, Cohen MB, Weydert J. Mandatory second opinion in surgical pathology referral material: clinical consequences of major disagreements. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008; 32: 732737.
  • 11
    Valenstein P. Quality Management in Clinical Laboratories. Promoting Patient Safety through Risk Reduction and Continuous Improvement. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists; 2005.
  • 12
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website. Accessed November 15, 2009.
  • 13
    Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnosis. Cancer. 2005; 104: 22052213.
  • 14
    Leong AS, Braye S, Bhagwandeen B. Diagnostic ‘errors’ in anatomical pathology: relevance to Australian laboratories. Pathology. 2006; 38: 487489.
  • 15
    Raab SS, Meier FA, Zarbo RJ, et al. The “big dog” effect: variability assessing the causes of error in diagnosis of patients with lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 28082814.
  • 16
    Byrt T, Bishop J. Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46: 423429.
  • 17
    Nelson JC, Pepe MS. Statistical description of interrater variability in ordinal ratings. Stat Methods Med Res. 2000; 9: 475496.
  • 18
    Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring errors in surgical pathology in real-life practice: defining what does and what does not matter. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 127: 144152.
  • 19
    Birkmeyer JD, Sharp SM, Finlayson SR, Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Variation profiles of common surgical procedures. Surgery. 1998; 124: 917923.
  • 20
    Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Health care quality, geographic variations, and the challenge of supply-sensitive care. Perspect Biol Med. 2003; 46: 6979.
  • 21
    Carlisle DM, Valdez RB, Shapiro MF, Brook RH. Geographic variation in rates of selected surgical procedures within Los Angeles County. Health Serv Res. 1995; 30: 2742.
  • 22
    Wolcott J, Schwartz A, Goodman C, The Lewin Group. Laboratory Medicine: A National Status Report, May 2008; Accessed November 17, 2009
  • 23
    Boone J. Presentation at the Institute on Critical Issues in Health Laboratory Practice: Managing for Better Health, September 23-26, 2007. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  • 24
    Lundberg GD. How clinicians should use the diagnostic laboratory in a changing medical world. Clin Cim Acta. 1999; 280: 311.
  • 25
    Stroobants AK, Goldschmidt HM, Plebani M. Error budget calculations in laboratory medicine: linking the concepts of biological variation and allowable medical errors. Clin Chim Acta. 2003; 333: 169176.
  • 26
    Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F. Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem. 2002; 48: 691698.
  • 27
    Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S, et al. Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169: 18811887.
  • 28
    Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Zarbo RJ, et al. Frequency and outcome of cervical cancer prevention failures in the United States. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 128: 817824.
  • 29
    Kaplan HS, Battles JB, Van der Schaaf TW, Shea CE, Mercer SQ. Identification and classification of the causes of events in transfusion medicine. Transfusion. 1998; 38: 107181.
  • 30
    Battles JB, Shea CE. A system of analyzing medical errors to improve GME curricula and programs. Acad Med. 2001; 76: 125133.
  • 31
    Smits M, Janssen J, de Viet R, et al. Analysis of unintended events in hospitals: inter-rater reliability of constructing causal trees and classifying root causes. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009; 21: 292300.
  • 32
    Braaten JS, Bellhouse DE. Improving patient care by making small sustainable changes: a cardiac telemetry nit's experience. Nurs Econ. 2007; 25: 162166.
  • 33
    Shannon RP, Frndak D, Grunden N, et al. Using real-time problem solving to eliminate central line infections. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2006; 32: 47987.
  • 34
    Condel JL, Sharbaugh DT, Raab SS. Error free pathology: applying lean production methods to anatomic pathology. Clin Lab Med. 2004; 24: 86599.
  • 35
    Reason J. Understanding adverse events: human factors. Qual Health Care. 1995; 4: 809.
  • 36
    Parks JK, Klien J, Frankel HL, Friese RS, Shafi S. Dissecting delays in trauma care using corporate lean six sigma methodology. J Trauma. 2008; 65: 10981104.
  • 37
    Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Condel JL, et al. Effect of Lean method implementation in the histopathology section of an anatomical pathology laboratory. J Clin Pathol. 2008; 61: 11939.
  • 38
    Spear S, Bowen K. Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press; 1999.
  • 39
    Chalice RW. Stop Rising Healthcare Costs using Toyota Lean Production Methods. 38 Steps for Improvement. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press; 2005.
  • 40
    Ohno T. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production. Portland, OR: Productivity Press; 1988.
  • 41
    Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D. The Machine that Changed the World. The story of Lean Production. How Japan's Secret Weapon in the Global Auto Wars Will Revolutionize Western Industry. New York, NY: Rawson Associates; 1990.
  • 42
    Ben-Tovim DI, Bassham JE, Bolch D, et al. Lean thinking across a hospital: redesigning care at the Flinders Medical Centre. Aust Health Rev. 2007; 31: 1015.
  • 43
    Napoles L, Quintana M. Developing a lean culture in the laboratory. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev. 2006; 20: E4.
  • 44
    Bryant PM, Gulling RD. Faster, better, cheaper: lean labs are the key to future survival. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev. 2006; 20: E2.
  • 45
    Jimmerson C, Weber D, Sobek DK 2nd. Reducing waste and errors: piloting lean principles at Intermountain Healthcare. Jt Comm J Qual Pat Saf. 2005; 31: 249257.
  • 46
    Meier FA, Zarbo RJ, Varney RC, et al. Amended reports: development and validation of a taxonomy of defects. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008: 130: 238246.
  • 47
    Zarbo RJ, Meier FA, Raab SS. Error detection in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005; 129: 12371245.
  • 48
    Valenstein PN, Raab SS, Walsh MK. Identification errors involving clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of patient and specimen identification errors at 120 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006; 130: 11061113.
  • 49
    Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22,439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 523531.
  • 50
    Clary JM, Silverman JF, Liu Y, et al. Cytohistologic discrepancies: a means to improve pathology practice and patient outcomes. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002; 117: 567573.
  • 51
    Nakhleh RE, Fitzgibbons PL. Quality Management in Anatomic Pathology. Promoting Patient Safety through Systems Improvement and Error Reduction. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists; 2005.
  • 52
    Mindemark M, Larsson A. Long-term effects of an education programme on the optimal use of clinical chemistry testing in primary health care. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2009; 69: 481486.
  • 53
    Larsson A, Biom S, Wernroth ML, Hulten G, Tryding N. Effects of an education programme to change clinical laboratory testing habits in primary care. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1999; 17: 238243.
  • 54
    Thomas RE, Croal BL, Ramsay C, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Effect of enhanced feedback and brief educational reminder messages on laboratory test requesting in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. Lancet. 2006; 367: 19901996.
  • 55
    Gortmaker SL, Bickford AF, Mathewson HO, Dumbaugh K, Tirrell PC. A successful experiment to reduce unnecessary laboratory use in a community hospital. Med Care. 1998; 26: 631642.
  • 56
    Verstappen WHJM, Van Merode F, Grimshaw J, Dubois WI, Grol RPTM, Van der Weijden T. Comparing cost effects of two quality strategies to improve test ordering in primary care: a randomized trial. Int J Qual Health Care. 2004; 16: 391398.
  • 57
    Vardy DA, Simon T, Limoni Y, et al. The impact of structured laboratory routines in computerized medical records in a primary care service setting. J Med Syst. 2005; 29: 619626.
  • 58
    Zaat JO, van Eijk JT, Bonte HA. Laboratory test form design influences test ordering by general practitioners in The Netherlands. Med Care. 1992; 30: 189198.
  • 59
    Kahan NR, Waitman D-A, Vardy DA. Curtailing Laboratory test ordering in a managed care setting through redesign of a computerized order form. Am J Manag Care. 2009; 15: 173176.
  • 60
    Feldman BM, Stephens D, Wang EE. How should excess admission laboratory test utilization be curtailed? –paediatricians' preferences. Clin Invest Med. 1995; 18: 502509.
  • 61
    Rivera MP, Mehta AC. Initial diagnosis of lung cancer: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest. 2007; 132(3 Suppl ): 131S148S.
  • 62
    Holloway CM, Saskin R, Brackstone M, Paszat L. Variation in the use of percutaneous biopsy for diagnosis of breast abnormalities in Ontario. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007; 14: 29322939.
  • 63
    Grzybicki DM, Gross T, Geisinger KR, Raab SS. Estimation of performance and sequential selection of diagnostic tests in patients with lung lesions suspicious for cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002; 126: 1927.
  • 64
    Couture MC, Nguyen CT, Alvarado BE, Velasquez LD, Zunzunegui MV. Inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening among urban Mexican women. Prev Med. 2008; 47: 471476.
  • 65
    Fisher DA, Galanko J, Dudley TK, Shaheen NJ. Impact of comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening in the veterans healthcare system. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007; 5: 991996.
  • 66
    Solomon D, Breen N, McNeel T. Cervical cancer screening rates in the United States and the potential impact of implementation of screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57: 105111.
  • 67
    Koroukian SM, Xu F, Dor A, Cooper GS. Colorectal cancer screening in the elderly populstion: disparities by dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollment status. Health Serv Res. 2006; 21: 136154.
  • 68
    Madrigal de la Campa Mde L, Lazcano Ponce EC, Infante Castaneda C. Overuse of colposcopy service in Mexico. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2005; 73: 63747.
  • 69
    Lieberman DA, Holub J, Eisen G, Kraemer D, Morris CD. Utilization of colonoscopy in the United States: results from a national consortium. Gastroentest Endosc. 2005; 62: 875883.
  • 70
    Zapka JG, Puleo E, Vickers-Lahti M, Luckmann R. Healthcare system factors and colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 23: 2835.
  • 71
    Fletcher RH, Colditz GA, Pawlson LG, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: the business case. Am J Manag Care. 2002; 8: 531538.
  • 72
    Bampton PA, Sandford JJ, Young GP. Applying evidence-based guidelines improves use of colonoscopy resources in patients with a moderate risk of colorectal neoplasia. Med J Aust. 2002; 176: 155157.
  • 73
    Arossi S, Ramos S, Paolino M, Sankaranarayanan R. Social inequality in Pap smear coverage: identifying under-users of cervical cancer screening in Argentina. Reprod Health Matters. 2008; 16: 5058.
  • 74
    Hatmaker AR, Donahue RM, Tarpley JL, Pearson AS. Cost-effective use of breast biopsy techniques in a Veterans health care system. Am J Surg. 2006; 192: e3741.
  • 75
    Wright CA, Pienaar JP, Marais BJ. Fine needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic utility in resource-limited settings. Ann Trop Paediatr. 2008; 28: 6570.
  • 76
    Zaat JO, van Eijk JT. General practitioners' uncertainty, risk preference, and use of laboratory tests. Med Care. 1992; 30: 846854.
  • 77
    Nightingale SD. Risk preference and laboratory test selection. J Gen Intern Med. 1987; 2: 2528.
  • 78
    Lopez-Beltran A, Bassi PF, Pavone-Macaluso M, Montironi R; European Society of Uropathology; Uropathology Working Group. Handling and pathology reporting of specimens with carcinoma of the urinary bladder, ureter, and renal pelvis. A joint proposal of the European Society of Uropathology and the Uropathology Working Group. Virchows Arch. 2004; 445: 103110.
  • 79
    Baek SE, Kim MJ, Kim EK, et al. Effect of clinical information on diagnostic performance in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2009; 28: 13491356.
  • 80
    Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, et al. The influence of clinical information on the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004; 85: 223228.
  • 81
    Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, et al. The influence of knowledge of mammography findings on the accuracy of breast ultrasound in symptomatic women. Breast J. 2005; 11: 167172.
  • 82
    Ferrara G, Argenyi Z, Argenziano G, et al. The influence of clinical information in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic skin neoplasms. PLoS One. 2009; 4: e5375.
  • 83
    Leslie A, Jones AJ, Goddard PR. The influence of clinical information on the reporting of CT by radiologists. Br J Radiol. 2000; 73: 10521055.
  • 84
    Lee DW, Stang PE, Goldberg GA, Haberman M. Resource use and cost of diagnostic workup of women with suspected breast cancer. Breast J. 2009; 15: 8592.
  • 85
    Loy CT, Irwig L. Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004; 292: 16021609.
  • 86
    Condous G, Van Calster B, Kirk E, et al. Clinical information does not improve the performance of mathematical models in predicting the outcome of pregnancies of unknown location. Fertil Steril. 2007; 88: 572580.
  • 87
    Quekel LG, Goei R, Kessels AG, van Engelshoven JM. Detection of lung cancer on the chest radiograph: impact of previous films, clinical information, double reading, and dual reading. Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 11461150.
  • 88
    Nodit L, Balassanian R, Sudilovsky D, Raab SS. Improving the quality of cytology diagnosis: root cause analysis for errors in bronchial washing and brushing specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005; 124: 883892.
  • 89
    Raab SS, Vrbin CM, Grzybicki DM, et al. Errors in thyroid gland fine needle aspiration. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006: 125: 873882.
  • 90
    Raab SS, Stone CH, Wojcik EM, et al. Use of a new method in reaching consensus on the cause of cytologic-histologic correlation discrepancy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 126: 836842.
  • 91
    Poller DN, Ibrahim AK, Cummings MH, et al. Fine-needle aspiration of the thyroid. Cancer. 2000; 90: 239244.
  • 92
    Poller DN, Stelow EB, Yiangou C. Thyroid FNAC cytology: can we do it better? Cytopathology. 2008; 19: 410.
  • 93
    Raab SS, Andrew-Jaja C, Grzybicki DM, et al. Dissemination of Lean methods to improve Pap testing quality and patient safety. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2008; 12: 103110.
  • 94
    Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Sudilovsky D, et al. Effectiveness of Toyota process redesign in reducing thyroid gland fine-needle aspiration error. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 126: 585592.
  • 95
    Patel AR, Jones JS. Optimal biopsy strategies for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol. 2009; 19: 232237.
  • 96
    Djavan B, Margreiter M. Biopsy standards for detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2007; 25: 1117.
  • 97
    Djavan B, Milani S, Remzi M. Prostate biopsy: who, how and when. An update. Can J Urol. 2005; 12 Suppl 1: 4448.
  • 98
    Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systemic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989; 142: 7174.
  • 99
    Keetch DW, Catalona WJ, Smith DS. Serial biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values. J Urol. 1994; 151: 15711574.
  • 100
    Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K, et al. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2000; 163: 152157.
  • 101
    Terris MK, Wallen EM, Stamey TA. Comparison of mid-lobe versus lateral systematic sextant biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Int. 1997; 59: 239242.
  • 102
    Scattoni V, Raber M, Abdollah F, et al. Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95% of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core biopsy. Eur Urol. ( 2009), doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.08.011.
  • 103
    Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1997; 157: 199202.
  • 104
    Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ, et al. Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001; 165: 15541559.
  • 105
    Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH, Amling CL. Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol. 2000; 163: 158162.
  • 106
    Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield, et al. Saturation techniques does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2006; 175: 485488.
  • 107
    Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol. 2001; 166: 8691.
  • 108
    Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, et al. Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 264272.
  • 109
    Homesley HD, Jobson VW, Reish RL. Use of colposcopically directed, four-quadrant cervical biopsy by the colposcopy trainee. J Reprod Med. 1984; 29: 311316.
  • 110
    Collins PD, Mpofu C, Watson AJ, Rhodes JM. Strategies for detecting colon cancer and/or dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 19;(2): CD000279.
  • 111
    Sidiropoulos N, Dumont LJ, Golding AC, Quinlisk FL, Gonzalez JL, Padmanabhan V. Quality improvement by standardization of procurement and processing of thyroid fine-needle aspirates in the absence of on-site cytological evaluation. Thyroid. 2009; 19: 10491052.
  • 112
    Gawande A. The Checklist Manifest. How to Get Things Right. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books®; 2009.
  • 113
    Nooh A, Babburi P, Howell R. Achieving quality assurance standards in colposcopy practice: a teaching hospital experience. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007; 47: 6164.
  • 114
    Johnson EJ, Patnick J, National Co-ordinator of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP). Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting, and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Second edition including revised performance indicators. Cytopathology. 2000; 11: 212241.
  • 115
    Luesley D, Leeson S. Colposcopy and Programme Management. NHS Cervical Screening Programme. NHSCSP Publication. 2004; 20.
  • 116
    Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The Bethesda System 2001: terminology for reporting the results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002; 287: 21142119.
  • 117
    Kocjan G, Chandra A, Cross P, et al. BSCC Code of Practice—fine needle aspiration cytology. Cytopathology. 2009; 20: 283296.
  • 118
    Lawson NS, Howanitz PJ. The College of American Pathologists, 1946-1996. Quality Assurance Service. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997; 121: 10001008.
  • 119
    Raab SS, Jones BA, Souers R, Tworek JA. The effect of continuous monitoring of cytologic-histologic correlation data on cervical cancer screening performance. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008; 132: 1622.
  • 120
    Tworek JA, Jones BA, Raab S, Clary KM, Walsh MK. The value of monitoring human papillomavirus DNA results for Papanicolaou tests diagnosed as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 68 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131: 15251531.
  • 121
    Raab SS, Tworek JA, Souers R, Zarbo RJ. The value of monitoring frozen section-permanent section correlation data over time. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006; 130: 337342.
  • 122
    Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005; 129: 459466.
  • 123
    Jones BA, Novis DA. Follow-up of abnormal gynecologic cytology: a college of American pathologists Q-probes study of 16132 cases from 306 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124: 665671.
  • 124
    Nakhleh RE, Gephardt G, Zarbo RJ. Necessity of clinical information in surgical pathology. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 771,475 surgical pathology cases from 341 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999; 123: 615619.
  • 125
    Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Valenstein PA. Diagnostic uncertainty expressed in prostate needle biopsies. A College of American Pathologists Q-probes Study of 15,753 prostate needle biopsies in 332 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999; 123: 687692.
  • 126
    Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Amended reports in surgical pathology and implications for diagnostic error detection and avoidance: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of 1,667,547 accessioned cases in 359 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998; 122: 303309.
  • 127
    Nakhleh RE, Jones B, Zarbo RJ. Mammographically directed breast biopsies: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of clinical physician expectations and of specimen handling and reporting characteristics in 434 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997; 121: 1118.
  • 128
    Jones BA. Rescreening in gynecologic cytology. Rescreening of 3762 previous cases for current high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and carcinoma—a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 312 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995; 119: 10971103.
  • 129
    Gephardt GN, Zarbo RJ. Interinstitutional comparison of frozen section consultations. A college of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 90,538 cases in 461 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 804809.
  • 130
    Gephardt GN, Baker PB. Lung carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of over 8300 cases from 464 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 922927.
  • 131
    Gephardt GN, Zarbo RJ. Extraneous tissue in surgical pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 275 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 10091014.
  • 132
    Novis DA, Gephardt GN, Zarbo RJ. Interinstitutional comparison of frozen section consultation in small hospitals: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 18,532 frozen section consultation diagnoses in 233 small hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 10871093.
  • 133
    Nakhleh RE, Zarbo RJ. Surgical pathology specimen identification and accessioning: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 1 004 115 cases from 417 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 227233.
  • 134
    Gephardt GN, Baker PB. Interinstitutional comparison of bladder carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 7234 bladder biopsies and curettings in 268 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995; 119: 681685.
  • 135
    Jones BA. Rescreening in gynecologic cytology. Rescreening of 8096 previous cases for current low-grade and indeterminate-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion diagnoses—a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 323 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 519522.
  • 136
    Zarbo RJ. Interinstitutional assessment of colorectal carcinoma surgical pathology report adequacy. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of practice patterns from 532 laboratories and 15,940 reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992; 116: 11131119.
  • 137
    Zarbo RJ, Fenoglio-Preiser CM. Interinstitutional database for comparison of performance in lung fine-needle aspiration cytology. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probe Study of 5264 cases with histologic correlation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992; 116: 463470.
  • 138
    Zarbo RJ, Howanitz PJ, Bachner P. Interinstitutional comparison of performance in breast fine-needle aspiration cytology. A Q-probe quality indicator study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991; 115: 743750.
  • 139
    Zarbo RJ, Hoffman GG, Howanitz PJ. Interinstitutional comparison of frozen-section consultation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probe study of 79,647 consultations in 297 North American institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991; 115: 11871194.
  • 140
    Howanitz PJ, Hoffman GG, Zarbo RJ. The accuracy of frozen-section diagnoses in 34 hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1990; 114: 355359.
  • 141
    Smith ML, Raab SS. Near-miss event rates in a traditional surgical pathology accessioning and gross examination laboratory. Mod Pathol. 2009; 22( Supplement 1): 336A.
  • 142
    Zarbo RJ, D'Angelo R. The Henry Ford production system: effective reduction of process defects and waste in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 128: 10151022.
  • 143
    Raab SS, King AM, Grzybicki DM. Root cause analysis of surgical pathology identification and information defects. Mod Pathol. 2009; 22 ( Supplement 1): 336A.
  • 144
    Dhir R, Condel JL, Raab SS. Identification and correction of errors in the anatomic pathology gross room. Pathol Case Rev. 2005; 10: 7982.
  • 145
    Zarbo RJ, Tuthill JM, D'Angelo R, et al. The Henry Ford Production System: reduction of surgical pathology in-process misidentification defects by bar code-specified work process standardization. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009; 131: 468477.
  • 146
    Galvis CO, Raab SS, D'Amico F, Grzybicki DM. Pathologists' assistants practice: a measurement of performance. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 116: 816822.
  • 147
    Sakata J, Shirai Y, Wakai T, Ajioka Y, Hatakeyama K. Number of positive lymph nodes independently determines the prognosis after resection in patients with gallbladder carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Jan 15 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 148
    Bhatti I, Peacock O, Awan AK, Semeraro D, Larvin M, Hall RI. Lymph node ratio versus number of affected lymph nodes as predictors of survival for resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. World J Surg. 2010 Jan 6 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 149
    Nissan A, Protic M, Bilchik A, Eberhardt J, Peoples GE, Stojadinovic A. Predictive model of outcome of targeted nodal assessment in colorectal cancer. Ann Surg. Jan 5 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 150
    Jakub, J. W., G. Russell, et al. (2009). “ Colon cancer and low lymph node count: who is to blame?Arch Surg. 2009; 144: 111520.
  • 151
    Platt E, Sommer P, McDonald L, Bennett A, Hunt J. Tissue floaters and contaminants in the histology laboratory. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133: 973978.
  • 152
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131: 1843.
  • 153
    Slamon D, Clark G, Wong S, et al. Human breast cancer: Correlation of relapse and survival and amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987; 235: 177182.
  • 154
    Sauter G, Lee J, Bartlett JM, Slamon DJ, Press MF. Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic and methodologic considerations. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 13231333.
  • 155
    Jacobs T, Gown A, Yazji H, et al. Comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry in a cohort of 6556 breast cancer tissues. Clin Breast Cancer. 2004; 5: 6339.
  • 156
    Jacobs T, Gown A, Yazji H, et al. Specificity of HercepTest in determining HER-2/neu status of breast cancers using the United States Food and Drug Administration-approved scoring system. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17: 19831987.
  • 157
    Khoury T, Sait S, Hwang H, et al. Delay to formalin fixation effect on breast biomarkers. Mod Pathol. 2009; 22(11): 14571467.
  • 158
    Gown AM. Current issues in ER and HER2 testing by IHC in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2008; 21( Suppl 2): S8S15.
  • 159
    Carlson RW, Moench SJ, Hammond ME, et al. HER2 testing in breast cancer: NCCN Task Force report and recommendations. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2006; 4 ( Suppl 3): S122.
  • 160
    Allred DC, Carlson RW, Berry DA, et al. NCCN Task Force Report: Estrogen Receptor and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer by Immunohistochemistry. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009; 7 ( Suppl 6): S1S21.
  • 161
    College of American Pathologists. CAP Education Programs. Accessed January 20, 2010
  • 162
    American Society for Clinical Pathology. Continuing Medical Education. Accessed January 20, 2010.
  • 163
    Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Mahood LK, et al. Effectiveness of random and focused review in detecting surgical pathology error. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 130: 90512.
  • 164
    Llewellyn H. Observer variation, dysplasia grading, and HPV typing: a review. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000; 114: S2135.
  • 165
    Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol. 1992; 16: 11331143.
  • 166
    Dalton LW, Pinder SE, Elston CE, et al. Histologic grading of breast cancer: linkage of patient outcome with level of pathologist agreement. Mod Pathol. 2000; 13: 730735.
  • 167
    Page DL, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Simpson JF. When and to what end do pathologists agree? J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998; 90: 8889.
  • 168
    Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 1991; 15: 209221.
  • 169
    Ghofrani M, Tapia B, Tavassoli FA. Discrepancies in the diagnosis of intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast and its management implications: results of a multinational survey. Virchows Arch. 2006; 449: 609616.
  • 170
    Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, et al. Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000; 24: 651659.
  • 171
    Bethwaite P, Smith N. Delahung B, et al. Reproducibility of new classification schemes for the pathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 1998; 51: 450454.
  • 172
    Sloane JP, Amendoeira I, Apostolikas N, et al. Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists in categorizing ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five classifications. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology. Hum Pathol. 1998; 29: 10561062.
  • 173
    Elsheikh TM, Asa SL, Chan JK, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variation among experts in the diagnosis of thyroid follicular lesions with borderline nuclear features of papillary carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 130: 736744.
  • 174
    Grzybicki DM, Jensen C, Geisinger KR, et al. Improving interobserver reproducibility in Pap test and cervical biopsy interpretations. Mod Pathol. 2007; 20( Supplement 2): 337A.
  • 175
    American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Cancer Program Standards. Chicago IL. American College of Surgeons; 2004.
  • 176
    Kang HP, Devine LJ, Piccoli AL, Seethala RR, Amin W, Parwani AV. Usefulness of a synoptic data tool for reporting of head and neck neoplasms based on the College of American Pathologists cancer checklists. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009; 132: 521530.
  • 177
    Mohanty SK, Piccoli AL, Devine LJ, et al. Synoptic tool for reporting of hematological and lymphoid neoplasms based on World Health Organization classification and College of American Pathologists checklist. BMC Cancer. 2007; 7: 144.
  • 178
    Sood JD, Wong C, Bevan R, Veale A, Sivakumaran P. Delays in the assessment and management of primary lung cancers in South Aukland. NZ Med J. 2009; 122: 4250.
  • 179
    Rash B, Martin-Hirsch P, Schneider A, et al. Resource use and cost analysis of managing abnormal Pap smears: a retrospective study in five countries. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2008; 29: 22532.
  • 180
    Zbidi I, Hazari R, Niv Y, Birkenfeld S. Colonoscopy screening and surveillance of colorectal cancer and polyps: physicians' knowledge. ISR Med Assoc J. 2007: 9: 862865.
  • 181
    Kelly KM, Phillips CM, Jenkins C, et al. Physician and staff perceptions of barriers to colorectal cancer screening in Appalachian Kentucky. Cancer Control. 2007; 14: 167175.
  • 182
    Wahls TL, Peleg I. Patient-and system-related barriers for the earlier diagnosis of colorectal cancer. BMC Fam Pract. 2009; 10: 65.
  • 183
    Singh H, Daci K, Petersen LA, et al. Missed opportunities to initiate endoscopic evaluation for colorectal cancer diagnosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104: 25432554.
  • 184
    Sargeran K, Murtomaa H, Safavi SM, Teronen O. Delayed diagnosis of oral cancer in Iran: challenge for prevention. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2009; 7: 6976.
  • 185
    Seoane J, Varela-Centelles PI, Walsh TF, Lopez-Cedrun JL, Vasquez I. Gingival squamous cell carcinoma: diagnostic delay or rapid invasion? J Periodeontol. 2006; 77: 12291233.
  • 186
    Gandhi Tk, Kachalia A, Thomas EJ, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145: 488496.
  • 187
    Hardin C, Pommier S, Pommier RF. The relationships among clinician delay of diagnosis of breast cancer and tumor size, nodal status, and stage. Am J Surg. 2006; 192: 506508.
  • 188
    Christensen ED, Harvald T, Jendresen M, Aggestrup S, Petterson G. The impact of delayed diagnosis of lung cancer on the stage at the time of operation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997; 12: 880884.
  • 189
    Gatcliffe TA, Coleman RL. Tumor board: more than treatment planning—a 1-year prospective survey. J Cancer Educ. 2008; 23: 235237.
  • 190
    Pawlik TM, Laheru D, Hruban RH, et al. Evaluating the impact of a single-day multidisciplinary clinic on the management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15: 20812088.
  • 191
    Newman EA, Guest AB, Helvie MA, et al. Changes in surgical management resulting from case review at a breast cancer multidisciplinary tumor board. Cancer. 2006; 107: 23462351.
  • 192
    Zarbo RJ, Nakhleh RE, Walsh M. Customer satisfaction in anatomic pathology. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 3065 physician surveys from 94 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003; 127: 2329.
  • 193
    Nguyen TD, Legrand P, Devie I, Cauchois A, Eymard JC. Qualitative assessment of the multidisciplinary tumor board in breast cancer. Bull Cancer. 2008; 95: 247251.
  • 194
    Abraham NS, Gossey JT, Davila JA, Al-Oudat S, Kramer JK. Receipt of recommended therapy by patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101: 13201328.
    Direct Link:
  • 195
    Lutterbach J, Pagenstecher A, Spreer J, et al. The brain tumor board: lessons to be learned from an interdisciplinary conference. Onkologie. 2005; 28: 2226.
  • 196
    Khalifa MA, Dodge J, Covens A, Osborne R, Ackerman I. Slide review in gynecologic oncology ensures completeness of reporting and diagnostic accuracy. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 90: 425430.
  • 197
    Petty JK. Vetto JT. Beyond doughnuts: tumor board recommendations influence patient care. J Cancer Educ. 2002; 17: 97100.
  • 198
    Kronz JD, Westra WH. The role of second opinion pathology in the management of lesions of the head and neck. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005; 13: 8184.
  • 199
    Wayment RO, Bourne A, Kay P, Tarter TH. Second opinion pathology in tertiary care of patients with urologic malignancies. Urol Oncol. 2009 Jun 11[Epub].
  • 200
    Thway K, Fisher C. Histopathological diagnostic discrepancies in soft tissue tumours referred to a specialist centre. Sarcoma. 2009; 2009: 741975 [Epub 2009 Jun 21].
  • 201
    Bomeisl PE, Jr., Alam S, Wakely PE, Jr. Interinstitutional consultation in fine-needle aspiration cytopathology: a study of 742 cases. Cancer Cytopathol. 2009; 117: 237246.
  • 202
    Lueck N, Jensen C, Cohen MB, Weydert JA. Mandatory second opinion in cytopathology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2009; 117: 8291.
  • 203
    Tan YY, Kebebew E, Reiff E, et al. Does routine consultation of thyroid fine-needle aspiration cytology change surgical management? J Am Coll Surg. 2007; 205: 812.
  • 204
    Thomas CW, Bainbridge TC, Thomson TA, McGahan CE, Morris WJ. Clinical impact of second pathology opinion: a longitudinal study of central genitourinary pathology review before prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy. 2007; 6: 135141.
  • 205
    Hamady ZZ, Mather N, Lansdown MR, Davidson L, Maclennan KA. Surgical pathological second opinion in thyroid malignancy: impact on patients' management and prognosis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005; 31: 7477.
  • 206
    Tsung JS. Institutional pathology consultation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004; 28: 399402.
  • 207
    Nguyen PL, Schultz D, Renshaw AA, et al. The impact of pathology review on treatment recommendations for patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urol Oncol. 2004; 22: 295299.
  • 208
    Kronz JD, Milord R, Wilentz R, Weir EG, Schreiner SR, Epstein JI. Lesions missed on prostate biopsies in cases sent in for consultation. Prostate. 2003; 54: 310314.
  • 209
    Weir MM, Jan E, Colgan TJ. Interinstitutional pathology consultations. A reassessment. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003; 120: 405412.
  • 210
    McGinnis KS, Lessin SR, Elder DE, et al. Pathology review of cases presenting to a multidisciplinary pigmented lesion clinic. Arch Dermatol. 2002; 138: 617621.
  • 211
    Wetherington RW, Cooper HS, Al-Saleem T, et al. Clinical significance of performing immunohistochemistry on cases with a previous diagnosis of cancer coming to a national comprehensive cancer center for treatment or second opinion. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002; 26: 12221230.
  • 212
    Staradub VL, Messenger KA, Hao N, Wiley EL, Morrow M. Changes in breast cancer therapy because of pathology second opinions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002; 9: 982987.
  • 213
    Vivino FB, Gala I, Hermann GA. Change in final diagnosis on second evaluation of labial minor salivary gland biopsies. J Rheumatol. 2002; 29: 938944.
  • 214
    Layfield LJ, Jones C, Rowe L, Gopez EV. Institutional review of outside cytology materials: a retrospective analysis of two institutions' experiences. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002; 26: 4548.
  • 215
    Westra WH, Kronz JD, Eisele DW. The impact of second opinion surgical pathology on the practice of head and neck surgery: a decade experience at a large referral hospital. Head Neck. 2002; 24: 684693.
  • 216
    Arbiser ZK, Folpe AL, Weiss SW. Consultative (expert) second opinions in soft tissue pathology. Analysis of problem-prone diagnostic situations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 116: 473476.
  • 217
    Coblentz TR, Mills SE, Theodorescu D. Impact of second opinion pathology in the definitive management of patients with bladder carcinoma. Cancer. 2001; 91: 12841290.
  • 218
    Hahm GK, Niemann TH, Lucas JG, Frankel WL. The value of second opinion in gastrointestinal and liver pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001; 125: 736739.
  • 219
    Baloch ZW, Hendreen S, Gupta PK, et al. Interinstitutional review of thyroid fine-needle aspirations; impact on clinical management of thyroid nodules. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001; 25: 231234.
  • 220
    Murphy WM, Rivera-Ramirez I, Luciani LG, Wajsman Z. Second opinion of anatomical pathology: a complex issue not easily reduced to matters of right and wrong. J Urol. 2001; 165: 19571959.
  • 221
    Chafe S, Honore L, Pearcey R, Capstick V. An analysis of the impact of pathology review in gynecologic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000; 48: 14331438.
  • 222
    Aldape K, Simmons ML, Davis RL, et al. Discrepancies in diagnoses of neuroepithelial neoplasms: the San Francisco Bay Area Adult Glioma Study. Cancer. 2000; 88: 23422349.
  • 223
    Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999; 86: 24262435.
  • 224
    Selman AE, Niemann TH, Fowler JM, Copeland LJ. Quality assurance of second opinion pathology in gynecologic oncology. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 94: 302306.
  • 225
    Lee AH, Mead GM, Theaker JM. The value of central histopathological review of testicular tumours before treatment. BJU Int. 1999; 84: 7578.
  • 226
    Chan YM, Cheung AN, Cheng DK, Ng TY, Ngan HY, Wong LC. Pathology slide review in gynecologic oncology: routine or selective? Gynecol Oncol. 1999; 75: 267271.
  • 227
    Wurzer JC, Al-Saleem TI, Hanlon AL, Freedman GM, Patchefsky A, Hanks GE. Histopathologic review of prostate biopsies from patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center: correlation of pathologic findings, analysis of cost, and impact on treatment. Cancer. 1998; 83: 753759.
  • 228
    Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, Lawrence WD. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology: I. Cancer in endometrial curettings and biopsies. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998; 17: 3641.
  • 229
    Jacques SM, Qureshi F, Munkarah A, Lawrence WD. Interinstitutional surgical pathology review in gynecologic oncology: II. Endometrial cancer in hysterectomy specimens. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998; 17: 4245.
  • 230
    Santoso JT, Coleman RL, Voet RL, Bernstein SG, Lifshitz S, Miller D. Pathology slide review in gynecologic oncology. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91: 730734.
  • 231
    Sharkey FE, Sarosdy MF. The significance of central pathology review in clinical studies of transitional cell carcinoma in situ. J Urol. 1997; 157: 6870.
  • 232
    Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GN, Langford LA. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer. 1997; 79: 796803.
  • 233
    Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Sanfilippo F. Clinical and cost impact of second-opinion pathology. Review of prostate biopsies prior to radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996; 20: 851857.
  • 234
    Prescott RJ, Wells S, Bisset DL, Banerjee SS, Harris M. Audit of tumour histopathology reviewed by a regional oncology centre. J Clin Pathol. 1995; 48: 245249.
  • 235
    Abt AB, Abt LG, Olt GJ. The effect of interinstitution anatomic pathology consultation on patient care. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995; 119: 514517.
  • 236
    Scott CB, Nelson JS, Farnan NC, et al. Central pathology review in clinical trials for patients with malignant glioma. A Report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 83-02. Cancer. 15 1995; 76: 307313.
  • 237
    Segelov E, Cox KM, Raghavan D, McNeil E, Lancaster L, Rogers J. The impact of histological review on clinical management of testicular cancer. Br J Urol. 1993; 71: 736738.
  • 238
    Renshaw AA, Schultz D, Cote K, Loffredo M, Ziemba DE, D'Amico AV. Accurate Gleason grading of prostatic adenocarcinoma in prostate needle biopsies by general pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003; 127: 10071008.
  • 239
    Frable WJ. Surgical pathology—second reviews, institutional reviews, audits, and correlations: what's out there? Error or diagnostic variation? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006; 130: 620625.
  • 240
    Veenhuizen KC, De Wit PE, Mooi WJ, Scheffer E, Verbeek AL, Ruiter DJ. Quality assessment by expert opinion in melanoma pathology: experience of the pathology panel of the Dutch Melanoma Working Party. J Pathol. 1997; 182: 266272.
  • 241
    Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Consultations in surgical pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 1993; 17: 743745.
  • 242
    Horowitz JM. Discordant diagnosis. Time. 1999; 154: 117.
  • 243
    Gupta D, Layfield LJ. Prevalence of inter-institutional anatomic pathology slide review. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000; 24: 280284.
  • 244
    Grzybicki DM, Shahangian S, Pollock AM, Raab SS. A summary of the deliberations on strategic planning for continuous quality improvement in laboratory medicine. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009; 131: 315320.
  • 245
    Shahangian S. CDC institutes on critical issues in health laboratory practice (1984-1995). Accessed January 24, 2010.