ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2025
Fast Processing of Electron Microscopic Specimen Preserved Ultrastructure of Glomeruli and Electron-Dense Deposits in Diagnostic Renal Biopsies: A Prospective and Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Optimization of electron microscopy (EM) tissue processing protocols is essential to handle the global increase in the number of renal biopsies requiring EM for accurate diagnosis. The conventional EM processing method (CEM) is the standard method used by >95% of laboratories worldwide and it takes at least 48 to 52 hours for completion. In contrast, a fast-processing EM (FEM) method using microwave irradiation can be completed in 8 hours, allowing EM findings to be reported within 24 hours for most cases. There is widespread concern about the suboptimal quality of the FEM that may compromise its diagnostic roles; however, qualitative and quantitative data supporting the noninferiority of FEM compared with CEM has not been reported. We performed both prospective and retrospective studies. The prospective analysis compares FEM and CEM images from the same biopsy samples. For each case, the tissue was divided into 2 pieces: 1 piece for FEM processing and the second for CEM processing. The retrospective study compares the EM images of renal cases with electron-dense deposits from our archives that were processed either by FEM or CEM. The prospective analysis included 4 cases: lupus membranous nephropathy, IgA nephropathy, immune complex-mediated glomerulonephritis, and acute tubular injury. Both FEM and CEM methods obtained high-resolution images with comparable quality. A quantitative morphometric analysis of the glomerular basement membrane (GBM) in the IgA nephropathy case showed similar GBM thickness when processed by the FEM and the CEM, suggesting that FEM did not affect GBM thickness. The retrospective study of 42 cases with electron-dense deposits showed that the ultrastructural features of electron-dense deposits were indistinguishable between the FEM and the CEM. This included microtubular substructures in immunotactoid glomerulonephritis, the "fingerprint" deposits in cryoglobulinemic glomerulonephritis, fibril deposits in the light chain amyloidosis as well as fibrillary glomerulonephritis, with comparable morphometric measurements of the deposits. The FEM is efficient, consistent, reproducible, and delivers comparable high-quality sections and images for diagnostic assessment of renal biopsies, compared with those attained by the CEM while decreasing turnaround time significantly, making it possible to provide faster and accurate diagnostic results.
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.