This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Background The concept of critical value is not evident in surgical pathology, and there is no established protocol for determining, reporting, and documenting these results. Materials and methods A questionnaire was designed regarding critical value in surgical pathology, and all pathologists and some clinicians from five laboratories were asked to participate through an invitation link. The most important items were selected, and all pathologists were instructed to follow a standard operating procedure to deal with critical results for a year. Results A total of 43 pathologists and 44 non-pathologists participated in the study. Some critical or unexpected items were selected. Most participants agreed that the optimal time to announce critical reports is within 24 h of establishing the final diagnosis, and a phone call was the most dependable communication option. In addition, the most qualified recipients were the attending physicians. Therefore, a written policy was implemented for a year. One hundred seventy-seven critical or unexpected cases (0.5%) were detected. Mucormycosis and cytomegalovirus (CMV) were the most frequent critical cases. Conclusion There are no set criteria for critical items or the reporting process in surgical pathology. It is possible to establish more uniform norms for reporting these cases by boosting pertinent research efforts and recruiting more pathologists and physicians. Additionally, it is advised that each medical facility compile its own unique critical or unexpected diagnosis list.