ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Comparative Analysis of Different Staining Techniques for Diagnosing Oral Cancer in Tissue Sections.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Oral cancer remains a significant health concern, often diagnosed at advanced stages due to delayed and inadequate diagnostic approaches. Histological staining techniques play a pivotal role in early and accurate detection. This study aims to compare the efficacy of hematoxylin and eosin (H and E), Periodic Acid-Schiff (PAS), and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining methods in identifying oral cancer in tissue sections. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 tissue samples were collected from patients with clinically and histologically confirmed oral cancer. These samples were divided into three groups, each stained with H and E, PAS, and IHC markers (p53 and Ki-67), respectively. The stained sections were evaluated for cellular morphology, nuclear detail, and differentiation grade by three independent pathologists. Quantitative and qualitative assessments were performed using a scoring system based on sensitivity, specificity, and overall diagnostic accuracy. Results: H and E staining demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 85%, effectively identifying cellular morphology but lacking specificity for poorly differentiated carcinoma. PAS staining showed moderate diagnostic value, with 78% accuracy, primarily highlighting glycogen and mucopolysaccharides in tumor cells. IHC staining yielded the highest diagnostic accuracy at 93%, offering detailed nuclear and cytoplasmic features and aiding in identifying specific biomarkers ( Conclusion: IHC staining proved to be the most reliable method for diagnosing oral cancer, with superior sensitivity and specificity compared to H and E and PAS techniques. The integration of IHC into routine diagnostic workflows can enhance early detection and improve treatment outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.