Comparative assessment between objective and subjective methods in slides stained by immunohistochemistry

Objective methods of assessment are often required in scientific studies. Histological tests with immunohistochemical staining can be assessed by photometry. To compare this objective method with the subjective evaluation performed by three independent examiners, using slides of acquired middle ear...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology 2013-11, Vol.79 (6), p.704-708
Hauptverfasser: de Andrade Quintanilha Ribeiro, Fernando, Pereira, Celina Siqueira Barbosa, Chi, Ricardo Junchen, Yokomizo, Patrícia Lumi, Guerreiro Fregnani, José Humberto Tavares, Rocha, Rafael Malagoli
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective methods of assessment are often required in scientific studies. Histological tests with immunohistochemical staining can be assessed by photometry. To compare this objective method with the subjective evaluation performed by three independent examiners, using slides of acquired middle ear cholesteatomas. 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. 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. 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.
ISSN:1808-8694
1808-8686
DOI:10.5935/1808-8694.20130129