Last weekend was the Society of Pediatric Pathology, and no blog. This week I want to discuss a project to build on the Dublin consensus conference book. As a reward for my contributing to the book, I was at first disappointed, all I got for my effort was an electronic copy of the book, instead of a print copy. However, in reading the digital book, I became convinced that it is potentially key to building a better way for placental pathologists to communicate. I have not consulted any editors or authors of the Pathology of the Placenta Dublin consensus book. By taking advantage of digital media, we can create a construct that can:
- Provide a medium to update the entry and constructively evaluate new papers/presentations
- Have an ongoing editorial group for each section that can include experienced, as well as, younger faculty, meeting (virtually) on a regular basis.
- Provide specific algorithms for evaluating a case with a presumed diagnosis
- Provide assistance with formatting the final diagnosis report]
- Provide an area for uploading cases and opinion for the editorial group to evaluate
- Have a non-linear format that would allow, like an outline, for deeper pursuit of a topic, including numerous photo micrograph or even whole slide examples
- Use hyperlinks to other relevant sections rather than repeating material
- Provide a forum to recruit for collaborative studies
- Provide analysis of studies in a format that would aid meta-analysis e.g. type of study, population number and criteria, including controls, outcome criteria, numerical results.
- Provide a clear definition of the clinical significance of the entity
I cannot now actually digitally format the “book” as I envision it, but I have a first draft model below for an entry. I have not consulted yet with any of the editors/authors of the Dublin book. I tried creating a mock-up in MSWord in outline format for Chronic Intervillositis of Unknown Etiology. I did not complete this sample section. I used an old piece that I had for the history section, and analyzed my own paper, but I intend to complete more over the next week. This topic was not a random choice. I am working on developing a collaborative study of this entity in the near future. I would appreciate any thoughts from others. Until I have a way to write on the site directly, please send comments to bendonrw@gmail.com.
(I uploaded the Work in Progress to the pages. WordPress has changed its tools and editing. The outline is scrunched into the blog space, and is too narrow and their heading choices are too large. This will take work. Also I do not know how to control the placement of the page headings. I will have to work on all of this as well as content.)
Proposed format for
Consensus name of the lesion:
Justification of name:
Indicators for placental examination;
History of the lesion/disease/concept, including nomenclature:
Diagnostic features
Gross
Diagnostic microscopic features
Other associated micro pathology
Ancillary testing on specimen:
Available
Indicators for use
Differential: With comparison micrographs
Pathogenesis:
Associations with evaluation of quality of study
Relevant basic science
Major unanswered questions
Clinical understanding:
Presentation: includes gestation
Laboratory features:
Immediate outcome
Recurrence
Treatment
Maternal health:
Major unanswered questions:
Final Path diagnosis and comment:
Consensus term
Extent and Severity of the lesion
Special studies
Relationship to other findings
Clinical Actions
For the infant
For the mother
For quality assurance
For research
For clarification and confirmation of clinical events
Review of published studies
Research Proposals
Ongoing
Suggested
Basic Science
Clinical Management
Public Upload area:
New Comments/opinion:
Up loaded cases:
New or overlooked papers/studies:
obstetrical pathology 
Leave a Reply