ArticleBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Comparative assessment between objective and subjective methods in slides stained by immunohistochemistry.
Article in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovative approach for the qualitative-quantitative assessment of neurodevelopment biomarkers research in placenta tissue using immunohistochemistry digital image analysis.Biology methods & protocols · 2025Article
- Letrozole administration effects on the P450aromatase expression and the reproductive parameters in male sheep (Animal reproduction · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledObjective methods of assessment are often required in scientific studies. Histological tests with immunohistochemical staining can be assessed by photometry.
objectiveTo compare this objective method with the subjective evaluation performed by three independent examiners, using slides of acquired middle ear cholesteatomas.
methodWe selected a total of 54 cholesteatoma images, immunohistochemically stained by anti-TNF-R2 (32 slides) and anti-TGF-α, (22 slides). The secondary antibody used in the two groups was the Max Polymer Detection System (Novo Link Kit, Novocastra®, UK). The samples were processed by a digital slide scanner (ScanScope - Aperio). The selected sites were analyzed by photometry.
resultsThe objective assessment by photometry was compared with the subjective evaluation by three examiners and subjected to statistical analysis. The Statistical analysis revealed moderate reproducibility (K values between 0.41 and 0.60) for both groups.
conclusionOur study showed that the irregular characteristics of middle ear cholesteatoma slides stained by immunohistochemistry prevents its proper objective evaluation, while the subjective assessment by experienced examiners was more reliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.