Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36084252›Full record

ReviewArchives of pathology & laboratory medicine2022

A Consortium for Analytic Standardization in Immunohistochemistry.

Steven A Bogen, David J Dabbs, Keith D Miller, Søren Nielsen, Suzanne C Parry, Matthias J Szabolcs, Nils t'Hart, Clive R Taylor, Emina E Torlakovic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Immunohistochemistry for PTEN testing in HR +/HER2- metastatic breast cancer.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. In Support of Magnani and Taylor.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2024
    Article
  9. Clinical Proteomics for Solid Organ Tissues.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2023
    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

9 authors.

Steven A BogenFrom Boston Cell Standards Inc, Boston, Massachusetts (Bogen).
David J DabbsFrom PreludeDx, Laguna Hills, California (Dabbs).
Keith D MillerFrom the Research Department of Pathology, University College London, London, United Kingdom (Miller).
Søren NielsenFrom NordiQC, Aalborg, Denmark (Nielsen).
Suzanne C ParryFrom UKNEQAS-ICC ISH, London, United Kingdom (Parry).
Matthias J SzabolcsFrom the Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York (Szabolcs).
Nils t'HartFrom the Department of Pathology, Isala, Zwolle, Netherlands (t'Hart).
Clive R TaylorFrom the Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (Taylor).
Emina E TorlakovicFrom the Department of Pathology, University of Saskatchewan and Saskatoon Health Authority, Saskatoon, Canada (Torlakovic).

Funding

National Immunohistochemistry Standardization Program - Establishment & LaunchR44CA268484 · NCI · BOSTON CELL STANDARDS INC · PI BOGEN, STEVEN A · 2021 to 2022
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS R44 CA268484
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CONTEXT.—: The authors announce the launch of the Consortium for Analytic Standardization in Immunohistochemistry, funded with a grant from the National Cancer Institute. As with other laboratory testing, analytic standards are important for many different stakeholders: commercial vendors of instruments and reagents, biopharmaceutical firms, pathologists, scientists, clinical laboratories, external quality assurance organizations, and regulatory bodies. Analytic standards are customarily central to assay development, validation, and method transfer into routine assays and are critical quality assurance tools. OBJECTIVE.—: To improve immunohistochemistry (IHC) test accuracy and reproducibility by integrating analytic standards into routine practice. To accomplish this mission, the consortium has 2 mandates: (1) to experimentally determine analytic sensitivity thresholds (lower and upper limits of detection) for selected IHC assays, and (2) to inform IHC stakeholders of what analytic standards are, why they are important, and how and for what purpose they are used. The consortium will then publish the data and offer analytic sensitivity recommendations where appropriate. These mandates will be conducted in collaboration and coordination with clinical laboratories, external quality assurance programs, and pathology organizations. DATA SOURCES.—: Literature review and published external quality assurance data. CONCLUSIONS.—: Integration of analytic standards is expected to (1) harmonize and standardize IHC assays; (2) improve IHC test accuracy and reproducibility, both within and between laboratories; and (3) dramatically simplify and improve methodology transfer for new IHC protocols from published literature or clinical trials to clinical IHC laboratories.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory ServicesLaboratoriesHumansImmunohistochemistryNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)Reproducibility of ResultsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID36084252
PMCPMC11681772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.