ArticleHistochemistry and cell biology2017
Section detachment in immunohistochemistry: causes, troubleshooting, and problem-solving.
Article in Histochemistry and cell biology, 2017. 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- State-of-the-Art on Wound Vitality Evaluation: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Application of the ultrasonic oscillation flotation method in paraffin section preparation.Histology and histopathology · 2026Article
- Tumor size and vascular and perineural invasion predict mesenteric involvement in small-intestinal neuroendocrine tumors.Endocrine · 2026Article
- Automated paraffin embedding of tissue samples significantly reduces overall workflow time in routine pathology practice.Pathologica · 2026Article
- Review
- One protocol to rule them all: a pilot study to identify the best fixation and decalcification approach for bone marrow biopsy immunohistochemistry.Pathologica · 2025Article
- Assessing spatial sequencing and imaging approaches to capture the molecular and pathological heterogeneity of archived cancer tissues.The Journal of pathology · 2025Article
- Be bold, start cold! cold formalin fixation of colorectal cancer specimens granted superior DNA and RNA quality for downstream molecular analysis.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2024Article
- Direct Detection of Borrelia Species in Tissues.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Evaluating mismatch repair deficiency in colorectal cancer biopsy specimens.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2023Article
- HLA-G as a prognostic marker in stage II/III colorectal cancer: not quite there yet.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2022Article
- A framework for multiplex imaging optimization and reproducible analysis.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Promotive effects of four herbal medicine ARCC on wound healing in mice and human.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Multiplex immunohistochemistry and high-throughput image analysis for evaluation of spatial tumor immune cell markers in human breast cancer.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2022Article
- Methods for restoration of ki67 antigenicity in aged paraffin tissue blocks.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2021Article
- Coping with formalin banning in pathology: under vacuum long-term tissue storage with no added formalin.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2019Article
- Safety and efficacy of hydroxytyrosol-based formulation on skin inflammation: in vitro evaluation on reconstructed human epidermis model.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2019Article
- Quality control in diagnostic immunohistochemistry: integrated on-slide positive controls.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2017Article
- KI-67 heterogeneity in well differentiated gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: when is biopsy reliable for grade assessment?Endocrine · 2017Article
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
Section detachment in immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a common phenomenon, increasing times and costs of diagnosis and research. However, it has poorly been investigated. The aim of this study was to identify the causes of section detachment, with the purpose of defining a quality assured laboratory procedure to minimize detachment frequency. We screened 3349 IHC sections from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, identifying 177 cases with section detachment (5.3% of the sample). Detachment regarded mainly samples of surgical breast tissue and IHC procedures in which heat pretreatment was used. Focusing on pre-analytical factors, we investigated seven main critical issues: (1) section aging; (2) section thickness; (3) slide contamination; (4) slide aging; (5) slide brand; (6) "human" influence; and (7) sample size and fixation. Each of these issues was individually investigated to establish their influence on detachment. Targeted experiments were performed by varying section age, thickness, cleanliness, slide brand and age, and sample size and fixation. Finally, to investigate operator-dependent causes, sections were cut by different operators blinded to aim. The most important factors influencing section detachment were demonstrated to be: section thickness, slide aging, slide brand, "human" influence, and size and fixation of samples. The pre-analytical phase, including all the aforementioned issues, should be standardized within a quality assurance program. By adopting these recommendations, we obtained a 34% drop in section detachment. Although section detachment remains difficult to eradicate completely, many other influences can be addressed and corrected in any laboratory leading to an increase in efficiency and cost saving.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28285337What 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.