Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19760433›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2009

Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of interpretation of immunohistochemical stains of prostate cancer.

Sara Jonmarker Jaraj, Philippe Camparo, Helen Boyle, François Germain, Bo Nilsson, Fredrik Petersson, Lars Egevad

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Deep Learning-Based H-Score Quantification of Immunohistochemistry-Stained Images.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara Jonmarker JarajDepartment of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Philippe Camparo
Helen Boyle
François Germain
Bo Nilsson
Fredrik Petersson
Lars Egevad
Karolinska University Hospital · SECentre International de Recherche sur le Cancer · FRCentre Léon Bérard · FRHôpital Foch · FRKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evaluation of immunohistochemistry (IHC) is usually semiquantitative, and thus subject to observer variability. We analyzed the reproducibility of different IHC measures. Fifty TMA cores of prostate cancer were stained for PDX-1, a transcription factor overexpressed in the cytoplasm of prostate cancer cells. The strongest intensity was scored 0-3 and 1-3 was used for extent (1-33%, 34-66%, and 67-100%). The stains were evaluated twice by four observers: two genitourinary pathologists, and two medical doctors with no formal pathology training. Staining intensity was also measured with automated image analysis. The pathologists read the slides faster than nonpathologists (total time 88 and 178 min, respectively, p = 0.03). Mean weighted kappa for intraobserver agreement was 0.85 (range 0.81-0.89) for intensity and 0.43 (range 0.38-0.51) for extent with similar results among pathologists and nonpathologists. Mean weighted kappa for interobserver agreement was 0.80 (range 0.77-0.84) for intensity and 0.21 (range 0.11-0.26) for extent. The subjective estimations of intensity correlated with results of image analysis (r = 0.61-0.66, p < 0.001), but the correlation between observers was stronger (r = 0.75-0.81) and correlated better with Gleason grade. Thus, subjective assessment of intensity can be done with a high level of reproducibility while estimation of staining extent is less reliable. Although educated pathologists were faster, the level of pathology training is not crucial for obtaining reproducible results in the analysis of TMA-based studies.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaHomeodomain ProteinsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImmunohistochemistryMaleObserver VariationPathology, ClinicalProstatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsTrans-ActivatorsHomeodomain Proteinspancreatic and duodenal homeobox 1 proteinTrans-Activators

Identifiers

PMID19760433
OpenAlexW2158089742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.