Re: the Results are in!
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
> >
>
>
>
>
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>