ArticleIranian journal of pathology2025
Interobserver Variability in Ki-67 Index Assessment of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Comparative Evaluation of Three Counting Methods.
Article in Iranian journal of pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Objective: Accurate evaluation of the Ki-67 proliferation index is critical in the grading and prognostication of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). This study aimed to compare three different methods of Ki-67 index assessment in primary gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs). Methods: The Ki-67 proliferation index was assessed by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining in 41 cases of primary GEP-NENs. Two pathologists independently evaluated the Ki-67 index using two visual estimation methods: eyeballing and eye-counting under a light microscope. A third method involved manual counting of Ki-67-positive and -negative nuclei on a captured image using ImageJ software. Interobserver and intermethod reproducibility were analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient (R) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess agreement among the four observers and between each observer and the manual method. Results: The ICC among the four observers was 0.993, indicating excellent interobserver agreement. The ICC between each observer's score and the manual counting method was 0.994, also demonstrating high concordance. Conclusion: All three methods, eyeballing, eye-counting, and manual counting using ImageJ, proved to be comparably effective in assessing the Ki-67 proliferation index in GEP-NENs. Notably, the simpler microscopic techniques of eyeballing and eye-counting showed excellent agreement with the manual image-based method, supporting their reliability in routine practice.
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.