Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To examine preferences of veterinary clinical pathologists, clinicians, and students for cytology report formats.
METHODS: 24 clinical pathologists, 1,014 veterinarians, and 93 veterinary students who were members of the Veterinary Information Network.
METHODS: Members of the Veterinary Information Network responded to an online survey invitation, made available between July 11, 2023, and July 24, 2023. Respondents were randomly directed to 1 of 4 sets of cytology reports, each containing a traditional narrative format, narrative format with terms expressing a degree of confidence and associated numerical ranges, and template format with similar estimates of confidence. Respondents ranked the reports in order of preference and then provided comments about their top-ranked choice. Responses were analyzed mostly with descriptive statistics or comparisons of proportions.
RESULTS: 14 of 24 clinical pathologists preferred the traditional narrative format, whereas 449 of 1,042 veterinary clinicians and veterinary students preferred the template format. Respondents (460/1,131) ranked the template format as most preferred, but the narrative format with terms expressing a degree of confidence ranked highest overall. Many respondents appeared to misunderstand the degree of confidence estimates being expressed numerically. Respondents choosing each format often stated that their preferred choice was \"easiest to understand\" and \"most comprehensive.\"
CONCLUSIONS: Given the preferences of veterinary clinicians and veterinary students for a template format, clinical pathologists should consider modifying the way they report evaluations of cytologic specimens. Template formats should help standardize reporting of cytologic specimens, thereby improving communication between clinical pathologists and clinicians. However, both clinicians and clinical pathologists need to better understand the purpose of terminology expressing degrees of confidence in such reports.
METHODS: 24 clinical pathologists, 1,014 veterinarians, and 93 veterinary students who were members of the Veterinary Information Network.
METHODS: Members of the Veterinary Information Network responded to an online survey invitation, made available between July 11, 2023, and July 24, 2023. Respondents were randomly directed to 1 of 4 sets of cytology reports, each containing a traditional narrative format, narrative format with terms expressing a degree of confidence and associated numerical ranges, and template format with similar estimates of confidence. Respondents ranked the reports in order of preference and then provided comments about their top-ranked choice. Responses were analyzed mostly with descriptive statistics or comparisons of proportions.
RESULTS: 14 of 24 clinical pathologists preferred the traditional narrative format, whereas 449 of 1,042 veterinary clinicians and veterinary students preferred the template format. Respondents (460/1,131) ranked the template format as most preferred, but the narrative format with terms expressing a degree of confidence ranked highest overall. Many respondents appeared to misunderstand the degree of confidence estimates being expressed numerically. Respondents choosing each format often stated that their preferred choice was \"easiest to understand\" and \"most comprehensive.\"
CONCLUSIONS: Given the preferences of veterinary clinicians and veterinary students for a template format, clinical pathologists should consider modifying the way they report evaluations of cytologic specimens. Template formats should help standardize reporting of cytologic specimens, thereby improving communication between clinical pathologists and clinicians. However, both clinicians and clinical pathologists need to better understand the purpose of terminology expressing degrees of confidence in such reports.
摘要：
目的：为了检查兽医临床病理学家的偏好，临床医生,和学生的细胞学报告格式。
方法：24位临床病理学家，1,014名兽医，和93名兽医学生，他们是兽医信息网络的成员。
方法：兽医信息网络成员回应了在线调查邀请，在2023年7月11日至2023年7月24日期间提供。受访者被随机定向到4套细胞学报告中的1，每个都包含传统的叙事格式，叙事格式，带有表示置信度和相关数值范围的术语，和具有相似置信度估计的模板格式。受访者按偏好顺序对报告进行排名，然后提供有关其排名最高的选择的评论。回答主要通过描述性统计或比例比较进行分析。
结果：24位临床病理学家中有14位更喜欢传统的叙事格式，而1,042名兽医临床医生和兽医学生中的449人更喜欢模板格式.受访者(460/1,131)将模板格式列为最首选，但是带有表达自信程度的术语的叙事格式总体上排名最高。许多受访者似乎误解了用数字表示的置信度估计。选择每种格式的受访者经常表示，他们的首选选择是“最容易理解”和“最全面”。\"
结论：鉴于兽医临床医生和兽医学生对模板格式的偏好，临床病理学家应该考虑修改他们报告细胞学标本评估的方式.模板格式应有助于规范细胞学标本的报告，从而改善临床病理学家和临床医生之间的沟通。然而,临床医生和临床病理学家都需要更好地理解表达此类报告可信度的术语的目的.
方法：24位临床病理学家，1,014名兽医，和93名兽医学生，他们是兽医信息网络的成员。
方法：兽医信息网络成员回应了在线调查邀请，在2023年7月11日至2023年7月24日期间提供。受访者被随机定向到4套细胞学报告中的1，每个都包含传统的叙事格式，叙事格式，带有表示置信度和相关数值范围的术语，和具有相似置信度估计的模板格式。受访者按偏好顺序对报告进行排名，然后提供有关其排名最高的选择的评论。回答主要通过描述性统计或比例比较进行分析。
结果：24位临床病理学家中有14位更喜欢传统的叙事格式，而1,042名兽医临床医生和兽医学生中的449人更喜欢模板格式.受访者(460/1,131)将模板格式列为最首选，但是带有表达自信程度的术语的叙事格式总体上排名最高。许多受访者似乎误解了用数字表示的置信度估计。选择每种格式的受访者经常表示，他们的首选选择是“最容易理解”和“最全面”。\"
结论：鉴于兽医临床医生和兽医学生对模板格式的偏好，临床病理学家应该考虑修改他们报告细胞学标本评估的方式.模板格式应有助于规范细胞学标本的报告，从而改善临床病理学家和临床医生之间的沟通。然而,临床医生和临床病理学家都需要更好地理解表达此类报告可信度的术语的目的.
