Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25432701›Full record

ReviewDiagnostic pathology2014

Different approaches for interpretation and reporting of immunohistochemistry analysis results in the bone tissue - a review.

Nickolay Fedchenko, Janin Reifenrath

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostic pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 445 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
445citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

445 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Enhancing Antibacterial Activity ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

385 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.

Nickolay FedchenkoSmall Animal Clinic, University of Veterinary Medicine, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, 30559, Hannover, Germany. fedchenko.nick@gmail.com.
Janin ReifenrathSmall Animal Clinic, University of Veterinary Medicine, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, 30559, Hannover, Germany. janin.reifenrath@tiho-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunohistochemistry (IHC) is a well-established, widely accepted method in both clinical and experimental parts of medical science. It allows receiving valuable information about any process in any tissue, and especially in bone. Each year the amount of data, received by IHC, grows in geometric progression. But the lack of standardization, especially on the post-analytical stage (interpreting and reporting of results), makes the comparison of the results of different studies impossible.

methodsComprehensive PubMED literature search with a combination of search words "immunohistochemistry" and "scoring system" was performed and 773 articles describing IHC results were identified. After further manual analysis 120 articles were selected for detailed evaluation of used approaches.

resultsSix major approaches to the interpretation and presentation of IHC analysis results were identified, analyzed and described.

conclusionsThe overview of the existing approaches in evaluation and interpretation of IHC data, which are provided in the article, can be used in bone tissue research and for either better understanding of existing scoring systems or developing a new one. Standard multiparametric, semiquantitative IHC scoring systems should simplify and clarify the process of interpretation and reporting of received data. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_221.

Indexed as

AnimalsAutomation, LaboratoryBiomarkersBone and BonesConsensusHumansImmunohistochemistryPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsResearch ReportTerminology as TopicBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID25432701
PMCPMC4260254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.