Aims: Digital pathology (DP) offers advantages over glass slide microscopy (GS), but data demonstrating a statistically valid equivalent (i.e. non-inferior) performance of DP against GS are required to permit its use in diagnosis. The aim of this study is to provide evidence of non-inferiority. Methods and results: Seventeen pathologists rereported 3017 cases by DP. Of these, 1009 were re-reported by the same pathologist, and 2008 by a different pathologist. Re-examination of 10 138 scanned slides (2.22 terabytes) produced 72 variances between GS and DP reports, including 21 clinically significant variances. Ground truth lay with GS in 12 cases and with DP in nine cases. These results are within the 95% confidence interval for existing intraobserver and interobserver variability, proving that DP is non-inferior to GS. In three cases, the digital platform was deemed to be responsible for the variance, including a gastric biopsy, where Helicobacter pylori only became visible on slides scanned at the 960 setting, and a bronchial biopsy and penile biopsy, where dysplasia was reported on DP but was not present on GS. Conclusions: This is one of the largest studies proving that DP is equivalent to GS for the diagnosis of histopathology specimens. Error rates are similar in both platforms, although some problems e.g. detection of bacteria, are predictable.

Approximately one-quarter of a million persons in the United States who are infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) do not know it. To decrease the number of such persons, primary care providers should make HIV testing a routine component of health care. HIV testing should also be offered routinely in other settings, such as emergency departments, jails, and substance abuse treatment centers. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend routine HIV testing only in settings where the prevalence of HIV infection is> or =1%; in settings where the prevalence of HIV infection is <1%, testing should be based on risk assessment. Because of the impracticality of strategies for testing that are based on estimates of prevalence, and because of the inaccuracy of risk assessment, we propose that HIV testing be routinely offered to any person who is sexually active. As an adjunct to the implementation of routine testing programs, counseling practices need to be streamlined, and rapid HIV testing needs to be implemented in the appropriate settings.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the current practices of family practice (FP) providers and their allied staff with regard to routine HIV testing in Rhode Island (RI) and Mississippi (MS). Anonymous experimenter-derived surveys were mailed to both groups of providers in 2002. The questionnaire contained five questions about their current practices and attitudes toward HIV testing as well as patient demographics. Five hundred twenty-one questionnaires were sent to American Academy of Family Practitioners (AAFP) members in RI and MS and to FPs with listings in the phone book in RI. The response rate was 52% in RI and 41% in MS. The vast majority of providers (93%) tested their high-risk patients for HIV, but less tested pregnant (57%) and other sexually active (37%) patients. The FPs in this survey wanted HIV testing to be done in the primary care setting, yet only 7% recommended HIV testing to their sexually active patients aged 18-50 in the previous year. In order not to stigmatize any specific risk group, nor to miss any patients who are unable to be identified as being "at high risk," routine testing in the primary care setting should be encouraged.