Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24561827›Full record

ReviewMethods (San Diego, Calif.)2014

Tissue fixation and the effect of molecular fixatives on downstream staining procedures.

William J Howat, Beverley A Wilson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Methods (San Diego, Calif.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 124 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

124 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Otolithic organs and vibratory sensitivity in frogs: do saccular otoconial volumes vary according to lifestyle?Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

William J HowatCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK. Electronic address: will.howat@cruk.cam.ac.uk.
Beverley A WilsonCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge CB2 0RE, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is impossible to underplay the importance of fixation in histopathology. Whether the scientist is interested in the extraction of information on lipids, proteins, RNA or DNA, fixation is critical to this extraction. This review aims to give a brief overview of the current "state of play" in fixation and focus on the effect fixation, and particularly the effect of the newer brand of "molecular fixatives" have on morphology, histochemistry, immunohistochemistry and RNA/DNA analysis. A methodology incorporating the creation of a fixation tissue microarray for the study of the effect of fixation on histochemistry is detailed.

Indexed as

AnimalsCross-Linking ReagentsDNAFixativesFormaldehydeHumansImmunohistochemistryLipidsMiceMice, Inbred BALB CParaffin EmbeddingProteinsRNAStaining and LabelingTemperatureTissue Array AnalysisCross-Linking ReagentsDNAFixativesFormaldehydeLipidsProteinsRNAHistochemistryMolecular fixativesTissue fixationTissue microarray

Identifiers

PMID24561827
PMCPMC4240801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.