Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7829674›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical pathology1994

Which proliferation markers for routine immunohistology? A comparison of five antibodies.

D S Rose, P H Maddox, D C Brown

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Comparison of Ki-67 equivalent antibodies.Journal of clinical pathology · 2002
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

D S RoseDepartment of Histopathology, Whittington Hospital, London.
P H Maddox
D C Brown

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo determine the best of five antibodies for immunohistochemical assessment of growth fraction in formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded tissues.

methodsSections from 100 recent, and 17 ten year old or over wax embedded blocks of normal and malignant tissues were immunostained with monoclonal Ki67, polyclonal Ki67, PC10, MIB1, and JC1. The antibodies were evaluated for specificity of nuclear versus cytoplasmic staining, cleanliness of background, and compared with the expected pattern of staining in normal tissues, defined immunohistochemically by monoclonal Ki67 antibody in frozen tissues or by tritiated thymidine uptake.

resultsNo marker was ideal, but best results were obtained with MIB1 and polyclonal Ki67, followed by JC1, PC10, and monoclonal Ki67.

conclusionsFor routine use, MIB1 or polyclonal Ki67 are the best proliferation markers in conventional histological preparations. The other markers tested cannot be recommended.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalCell DivisionEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansImmunohistochemistryKi-67 AntigenNeoplasm ProteinsNeoplasmsNuclear ProteinsAntibodies, MonoclonalKi-67 AntigenNeoplasm ProteinsNuclear Proteins

Identifiers

PMID7829674
PMCPMC503063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.