ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2026
UK participation in the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme for mismatch repair immunohistochemistry: insights from the last decade.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2026. 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
aimComparison of immunohistochemical detection of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins within tumours, as deficient MMR is important for (1) the detection of Lynch Syndrome, caused by inherited variants affecting the DNA MMR genes
methodsThis retrospective analysis compares the performance of different MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) antibody clones, detection systems and automation IHC platforms using a decade of technical data submitted to the UK National External Quality Assessment Scheme (NEQAS) as part of its MMR EQA programme, with calculation of participants' final aggregated scores (FAS) for performance comparison.
resultsBetween 2011 and 2022, there were 38 MMR assessment runs, with an average of 44.8 submissions per antigen per assessment run. MMR module participation greatly increased over this decade. Average FAS showed a small non-significant upward trend with the lowest scores (14.6) observed in the first half of the decade, with greater concordance between FAS scores (15.1) in the second half of the decade. For MMR IHC, the antibody clones most frequently used were M1 and ES05 (FAS 15.7 and 15.1) for MLH1, G219-1129 and FE11 (FAS 14.8 and 14.1) for MSH2, EP51 and A16-4 (FAS 15.2 and 15.2) for PMS2 and SP93 and EP49 (FAS 16.1 and 15.6) for MSH6. The most common detection systems were Ventana Optiview, Leica BondMax, Leica Bond Refine, Dako FLEX+ and Ventana UltraView.
conclusionsThe quality of submitted MMR IHC sections has risen, with recent assessment scores showing lower variability, indicating better antibody clone performance, improved detection systems and IHC automation platform technology, allied to increasing technical competence among participants. UK NEQAS provides insight and feedback relating to MMR IHC protocols that most reliably produce high-quality MMR IHC staining to facilitate accurate reporting of the increasingly important tumour MMR status.
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.