ArticleFujita medical journal2025
Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders: variations in eosinophilic counts among investigators and staining methods.
Article in Fujita medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are pathologically diagnosed by manually counting the eosinophils in biopsy tissue under microscopy. However, the skill of the individual examiner is considered to influence the accuracy of the resulting eosinophil count (EC). This study aimed to examine the effects of different examiners and histopathological staining types on the EC results of pathological tissues from patients with EGIDs. Methods: Infiltrating eosinophils in lesion tissues from 10 eosinophilic esophagitis and 28 eosinophilic gastroenteritis cases were counted by three pathologists and one cytotechnologist. The intra- and inter-observer variabilities in ECs related to hematoxylin-eosin (HE), May-Grünwald Giemsa (MG), and direct fast scarlet (DFS) staining were investigated. The effects of examiner expertise and staining method on ECs were analyzed using a linear mixed effects model. The difference in color value (ΔE) for each staining method was obtained using the Commission International de l'Eclairage luminance-a-b model (L*a*b*). Results: There was no significant intra-observer variability in eosinophil counting. Regarding inter-observer agreement, the examiner with the most EGIDs experience reported higher ECs than the other examiners for all three staining types ( Conclusions: DFS staining offered the most selective visualization of eosinophils. ECs may vary depending on both the skill of the examiner and the staining method.
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.