The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The EnVision++ system: a new immunohistochemical method for diagnostics and research. Critical comparison with the APAAP, ChemMate, CSA, LABC, and SABC techniques.
Open accessAbstract
AIM: To assess a newly developed immunohistochemical detection system, the EnVision++. METHODS: A large series of differently processed normal and pathological samples and 53 relevant monoclonal antibodies were chosen. A chessboard titration assay was used to compare the results provided by the EnVision++ system with those of the APAAP, CSA, LSAB, SABC, and ChemMate methods, when applied either manually or in a TechMate 500 immunostainer. RESULTS: With the vast majority of the antibodies, EnVision++ allowed two- to fivefold higher dilutions than the APAAP, LSAB, SABC, and ChemMate techniques, the staining intensity and percentage of expected positive cells being the same. With some critical antibodies (such as the anti-CD5), it turned out to be superior in that it achieved consistently reproducible results with differently fixed or overfixed samples. Only the CSA method, which includes tyramide based enhancement, allowed the same dilutions as the EnVision++ system, and in one instance (with the anti-cyclin D1 antibody) represented the gold standard. CONCLUSIONS: The EnVision++ is an easy to use system, which avoids the possibility of disturbing endogenous biotin and lowers the cost per test by increasing the dilutions of the primary antibodies. Being a two step procedure, it reduces both the assay time and the workload.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Rodig, S. J., Mino-Kenudson, M., Dacic, S., Yeap, B. Y., Shaw, A., Barletta, J. A., Stubbs, H., Law, K., Lindeman, N., Mark, E., et al. (2009) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-0802 · Cited by 678
Prevalence of lymphoreticular prion protein accumulation in UK tissue samples
Hilton, D. A., Ghani, A. C., Conyers, L., Edwards, P., McCardle, L., Ritchie, D., Penney, M., Hegazy, D., & Ironside, J. W. (2004) · The Journal of Pathology · doi:10.1002/path.1580 · Cited by 444
Multiple Immunoenzyme Staining: Methods and Visualizations for the Observation With Spectral Imaging
Loos, C. M. V. D. (2008) · Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry · doi:10.1369/jhc.2007.950170 · Cited by 232
Review: immunoassays in DNA damage and instability detection
Boguszewska, K., Szewczuk, M., Urbaniak, S., & Karwowski, B. T. (2019) · Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/s00018-019-03239-6 · Cited by 49
Prediction of the response to chemoradiation and prognosis in oesophageal squamous cancer
Kishi, K., Doki, Y., Miyata, H., Yano, M., Yasuda, T., & Monden, M. (2002) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02057.x · Cited by 47
Metadata
- Authors
- Sabattini, E., Bisgaard, K., Ascani, S., Poggi, S., Piccioli, M., Ceccarelli, C., Pieri, F., Fraternali-Orcioni, G., & Pileri, S. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Pathology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-07
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 506-511
- ISSN
- 0021-9746 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-4146
- OpenAlex
- W2099566069
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The EnVision++ system: a new immunohistochemical method for diagnostics and research. Critical comparison with the APAAP, ChemMate, CSA, LABC, and SABC techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jcp.51.7.506
- The paper
- Sabattini, E., Bisgaard, K., Ascani, S., Poggi, S., Piccioli, M., Ceccarelli, C., Pieri, F., Fraternali-Orcioni, G., & Pileri, S. A. (1998). The EnVision++ system: a new immunohistochemical method for diagnostics and research. Critical comparison with the APAAP, ChemMate, CSA, LABC, and SABC techniques. Journal of Clinical Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.51.7.506
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.