AIM: To carry out an objective assessment of two systems of scoring immunohistochemical staining, evaluating interobserver and intraobserver error. METHODS: 92 cervical tumours underwent immunohistochemical staining for p53 and epidermal growth factor receptor. Staining was assessed using two methods: a standard 4 point scale and a descriptive method, performed by three observers. Interobserver and intraobserver error were assessed for both scoring methods. RESULTS: In terms of interobserver error between three observers, no difference was found between a simple 4 point scale method of evaluation and the use of a highly circumscribed method. In all evaluations, interobserver error was scored as moderate (kappa w 0.48-0.49). However, evaluation of immunohistochemical staining by a panel of observers led to a marked improvement in the interobserver error scores (kappa w 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: There should be standardisation of immunohistochemical staining and scoring methods. More attention should be paid to measurement of interobserver and intraobserver error in studies. Use of a panel of tissue control slides and consensus scoring by several observers can lead to improvement in reproducibility.
AIM: To carry out an objective assessment of two systems of scoring immunohistochemical staining, evaluating interobserver and intraobserver error. METHODS: 92 cervical tumours underwent immunohistochemical staining for p53 and epidermal growth factor receptor. Staining was assessed using two methods: a standard 4 point scale and a descriptive method, performed by three observers. Interobserver and intraobserver error were assessed for both scoring methods. RESULTS: In terms of interobserver error between three observers, no difference was found between a simple 4 point scale method of evaluation and the use of a highly circumscribed method. In all evaluations, interobserver error was scored as moderate (kappa w 0.48-0.49). However, evaluation of immunohistochemical staining by a panel of observers led to a marked improvement in the interobserver error scores (kappa w 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: There should be standardisation of immunohistochemical staining and scoring methods. More attention should be paid to measurement of interobserver and intraobserver error in studies. Use of a panel of tissue control slides and consensus scoring by several observers can lead to improvement in reproducibility.
Authors: P J van Diest; P van Dam; S C Henzen-Logmans; E Berns; M E van der Burg; J Green; I Vergote Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: David P Turner; Victoria J Findlay; Omar Moussa; Victor I Semenchenko; Patricia M Watson; Amanda C LaRue; Mohamed M Desouki; Mostafa Fraig; Dennis K Watson Journal: Prostate Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Rafal Wierzbicki; Derek J Jonker; Malcolm J Moore; Scott R Berry; Patrick J Loehrer; Hagop Youssoufian; Eric K Rowinsky Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Courtney Smith; Mariarita Santi; Bhargavi Rajan; Elisabeth J Rushing; Mi Rim Choi; Brian R Rood; Robert Cornelison; Tobey J MacDonald; Stanislav Vukmanovic Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2009-07-12 Impact factor: 5.531