Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology · 2013
Comparative assessment between objective and subjective methods in slides stained by immunohistochemistry.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ribeiro Fernando de Andrade Quintanilha, Pereira Celina Siqueira Barbosa, Chi Ricardo Junchen, Yokomizo Patrícia Lumi, Fregnani José Humberto Tavares Guerreiro, Rocha Rafael Malagoli
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Objective methods of assessment are often required in scientific studies. Histological tests with immunohistochemical staining can be assessed by photometry.
OBJECTIVE: To compare this objective method with the subjective evaluation performed by three independent examiners, using slides of acquired middle ear cholesteatomas.
METHOD: We selected a total of 54 cholesteatoma images, immunohistochemically stained by anti-TNF-R2 (32 slides) and anti-TGF-α, (22 slides). The secondary antibody used in the two groups was the Max Polymer Detection System (Novo Link Kit, Novocastra®, UK). The samples were processed by a digital slide scanner (ScanScope - Aperio). The selected sites were analyzed by photometry.
RESULTS: The objective assessment by photometry was compared with the subjective evaluation by three examiners and subjected to statistical analysis. The Statistical analysis revealed moderate reproducibility (K values between 0.41 and 0.60) for both groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the irregular characteristics of middle ear cholesteatoma slides stained by immunohistochemistry prevents its proper objective evaluation, while the subjective assessment by experienced examiners was more reliable.
OBJECTIVE: To compare this objective method with the subjective evaluation performed by three independent examiners, using slides of acquired middle ear cholesteatomas.
METHOD: We selected a total of 54 cholesteatoma images, immunohistochemically stained by anti-TNF-R2 (32 slides) and anti-TGF-α, (22 slides). The secondary antibody used in the two groups was the Max Polymer Detection System (Novo Link Kit, Novocastra®, UK). The samples were processed by a digital slide scanner (ScanScope - Aperio). The selected sites were analyzed by photometry.
RESULTS: The objective assessment by photometry was compared with the subjective evaluation by three examiners and subjected to statistical analysis. The Statistical analysis revealed moderate reproducibility (K values between 0.41 and 0.60) for both groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the irregular characteristics of middle ear cholesteatoma slides stained by immunohistochemistry prevents its proper objective evaluation, while the subjective assessment by experienced examiners was more reliable.