ArticleJournal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP
Alternatives to eosin in histopathological assessments: A comparison of organic stains.
Article in Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) remains the cornerstone of diagnostic pathology, but the potential harmful effects, high cost, and environmental pollution have necessitated the exploration of eco-friendly and economical alternatives. Aims: This study evaluated and compared the overall staining efficacy, durability, and economic feasibility of H&E, hematoxylin and Allium cepa (H&AC), and hematoxylin and Bixa Orellana (H&BO). Settings and Design: The comparative study was conducted in the Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Dental Science, Dharmsinh Desai University, Nadiad, Gujarat, over 18 months. Materials and Methods: A total of 225 slides, including epithelium, collagen fibers, adipose tissue, salivary gland, and bone, were stained with H&E, H&AC, and H&BO. The overall efficacy evaluation was performed on the basis of staining intensity, clarity, and uniformity. Statistical Analysis Used: Staining parameters were graded and statistically analyzed using Chi-square and Results: H&E demonstrated superior staining quality across all parameters, with 98.67% excellent intensity, 100% clarity, and 97.33% uniformity ( Conclusions: While H&E remains the benchmark in diagnostic histopathology, H&BO presents a promising eco-conscious alternative. H&AC, despite its affordability, requires refinement for consistent diagnostic use. This study highlights the potential for balancing diagnostic excellence with environmental responsibility in routine staining protocols.
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.