Pathologists often incorporate modifying phrases in their diagnosis to imply varying levels of diagnostic certainty; however, what is implied by the pathologists is not equivalent with what is perceived by the referring physicians and patients. This discordance can have significant implications in management, safety, and cost. We intend to identify lack of consistency in interpretation of modifying phrases by comparing perceived level of certainty by pathologists and non-pathologists, and introduce a standard scheme for reporting uncertainty in pathology reports using the experience with imaging reporting and data systems. In this study, a list of 18 most commonly used modifying phrases in pathology reports was distributed among separate cohorts of pathologists (N = 17) and non-pathology clinicians (N = 225) as a questionnaire survey, and the participants were asked to assign a certainty level to each phrase. All the participants had practice privileges in Brown University-affiliated teaching hospitals. The survey was completed by 207 participants (17 pathologists, 190 non-pathologists). It reveals a significant discordance between the interpretations of the modifying phrases between the two cohorts, with significant variations in subgroups of non-pathology clinicians. Also there is disagreement between pathologists and other clinicians regarding the causes of miscommunication triggered by pathology reports. Pathologists and non-pathology clinicians should be mindful of the potential sources of misunderstanding of pathology reports and take necessary actions to prevent and clarify the uncertainties. Using a standard scheme for reporting uncertainty in pathology reports is recommended.

病理学家经常在他们的诊断中加入修饰词来暗示不同程度的诊断确定性；然而，病理学家所暗示的并不等同于转诊医生和患者所感知的。这种不一致会对管理、安全和成本产生重大影响。我们打算通过比较病理学家和非病理学家感知的确定性水平来确定修饰短语解释中缺乏一致性，并使用成像报告和数据系统的经验引入报告病理报告不确定性的标准方案。在这项研究中，病理报告中 18 个最常用的修饰短语的列表分布在不同的病理学家 ( N  = 17) 和非病理学临床医生 (N = 225）作为问卷调查，参与者被要求为每个短语分配一个确定性级别。所有参与者都有在布朗大学附属教学医院的执业特权。该调查由 207 名参与者（17 名病理学家，190 名非病理学家）完成。它揭示了两个队列之间修饰短语的解释之间存在显着不一致，非病理学临床医生的亚组存在显着差异。此外，病理学家和其他临床医生对病理报告引发的沟通不畅的原因存在分歧。病理学家和非病理学临床医生应注意病理报告误解的潜在来源，并采取必要措施预防和澄清不确定性。