The criteria for the literature review were determined as follows using the setting population intervention comparison and evaluation (SPICE) approach:
| Category | Response | Keywords |
| setting | pathology; healthcare | pathology, healthcare, medical |
| population | medical/scientifically capable readers | pathologists, oncologists, clinicians |
| intervention | format/layout | format, layout, design, configuration, user views, aesthetic, typography, legibility |
| comparison | compared with existing report formats | patient reports; pathology reports; cancer reports; medical reports |
| evaluation | speed to acquire information & accuracy/comprehension | readability, accuracy, speed, comprehension, communication , eye tracking, eye movement, cognitive psychology |
A wide variety of PUBMed, SCIRUS, and GOOGLE search strategies were undertaken using the combinations of keywords above. Further review of likely sources of information was pursued from bibliography in the above searches.
In addition, specific review of bibliography in the following two articles was undertaken:
- Valenstein PN (2008). Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 132(1):84–94.
- Powsner SM, Costa J, Homer RJ. Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus: clinician interpretation of pathology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124:1040–1046.
Note: Non-English publications were excluded from this literature review.