you tell 'em Barry

Joe Nocito BS, HT (ASCP) QIHC
Histology Manager
Pathology Reference Lab
San Antonio, Texas
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry R Rittman" 
To: "histology" 
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: the Results are in!


> I have not really been following all the emails on this topic but as an
> outside observer what is the problem here?
> Vinnie carried out a reasonable, albeit brief, survey to get an idea of
> what people thought and that is what he got. A statistical survey should
> also include years of training, standard paraffin blocks (yes we would
> all like to see that), environment (air, humidity, static electricity
> etc), type of microtome and so on. Perhaps a survey lasting 4 weeks and
> encompassing all the biopsy services in the country would have been nice
> but....the fact is that he asked for opinions and got them.  
> 
> We really need a survey on hematoxylin and eosin stains, I would suggest
> something starting like this:
> 1. Do you carry out H and E staining. If no go to end of survey.
> 2. What hematoxylin solution do you use?
> How long do you stain?
> What temperature do you stain at? 
> If at room temperature what is the median temperature?
> (if dramatically changed during different months,
> the median temperature per month for the past 10
> years).
> When do you change the hematoxylin solution?
> 
> I think that you get the general idea...
> 
> Vinnie, thanks for collecting this "non-statistical" information.
> Barry
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Gill [mailto:garygill@dcla.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 3:47 PM
> To: 'Cliff Berger'; 'Vinnie Della Speranza';
> histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
> Cc: 'Donna McClellan'
> Subject: RE: the Results are in!
> 
> Cliff's right: it's subjective versus objective; words versus action.
> Unsubstantiated opinions are an insufficient basis on which to make
> decisions -- though admittedly people do it all the time (e.g., get
> married).  ;-)
> 
> Gary Gill
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cliff Berger [mailto:cberger@decal-bone.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 3:31 PM
> To: 'Vinnie Della Speranza'; histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
> Cc: 'Donna McClellan'
> Subject: RE: the Results are in!
> 
> 
> Actually you can't even conclude that. This opinion poll was not
> conducted in accordance with modern statistical theory. Polling can't
> work without random sampling. Can you tell us what the margin of error
> is for your findings? I only thought that as members of a scientific
> community we all should understand that the results you claim are
> reliable are completely unreliable.  
> 
> I only commented on this from a scientific point of view. I have no
> interest in blades.  I don't make them. I don't sell them. I don't use
> them.  
> 
> Furthermore, I never said that opinions are meaningless. I only said
> that the manner in which you gathered, tallied and presented the
> information is meaningless.  Your 4:1 margin claim has no basis in
> reality. 
> 
> Cliff Berger
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinnie Della Speranza [mailto:dellav@musc.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:47 PM
> To: cberger@decal-bone.com; histonet@pathology.swmed.edu
> Cc: Donna McClellan
> Subject: Re: the Results are in!
> 
> Cliff,
> you are looking for science where there can be none. I asked the list
> for the preferences (which are subjective opinions) of those who have
> evaluated different blades. The most that can be concluded from this
> poll is that more people buy AccuEdge (by a 4:1 margin) than other
> brands. Since this blade costs more, I would presume that those using it
> feel that the additional cost is worth it.
> 
> Is it really your  intention  to tell those who responded to my query
> that their op;inions are meaningless? All I did was count up the replies
> and convert to a percent based upon the total number of responses to the
> question.
> Vinnie
> 
> >>> Cliff Berger  06/27/03 11:24AM >>>
> Vinnie, 
> 
> In fairness to all the companies making blades, and to those who are
> using
> them as well,  everyone should be aware that your   <> has has
> no
> statistical merit whatsoever.   This has not been a science behind your
> poll
> in completely skewed so the results are meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> 
> Cliff Berger
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Vinnie Della Speranza 
> > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:52:32 -0400
> > To: histonet@pathology.swmed.edu 
> > Cc: Donna McClellan 
> > Subject: the Results are in!
> > 
> > thank you to all who responded to my query re: best disposable
> microtome
> > blade
> > 
> > here are the results:
> > 
> > Accu-Edge   was recommeded by   55% of respondents. This blade was
> > recommended more than four times more frequently than the next
> highest
> > recommended blade.
> > 
> > Richard Allen  was recommended by   12.5%  of respondents
> > Sturkeywas recommended by   12.5%  of respondents
> > Shandon was recommended by  10%  of respondents
> > Surgipath was recommended by   5%   of respondents
> > DuraEdge was recommended by   5%   of respondents
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Vinnie Della Speranza
> > Manager for Anatomic Pathology Services
> > Medical University of South Carolina
> > 165 Ashley Avenue  Suite 309
> > Charleston, SC 29425
> > Ph: 843-792-6353
> > fax: 843-792-8974
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>