4.6 Review

Multiparametric and semiquantitative scoring systems for the evaluation of mouse model histopathology - a systematic review

期刊

BMC VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-123

关键词

Score; Semiquantitative; Histopathology; Colitis; Nephritis; Hepatitis; Encephalitis

资金

  1. FCT [BD/43731/2008]
  2. DFG [KL 2240/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Histopathology has initially been and is still used to diagnose infectious, degenerative or neoplastic diseases in humans or animals. In addition to qualitative diagnoses semiquantitative scoring of a lesion's magnitude on an ordinal scale is a commonly demanded task for histopathologists. Multiparametric, semiquantitative scoring systems for mouse models histopathology are a common approach to handle these questions and to include histopathologic information in biomedical research. Results: Inclusion criteria for scoring systems were a first description of a multiparametric, semiquantiative scoring systems which comprehensibly describe an approach to evaluate morphologic lesion. A comprehensive literature search using these criteria identified 153 originally designed semiquantitative scoring systems for the analysis of morphologic changes in mouse models covering almost all organs systems and a wide variety of disease models. Of these, colitis, experimental autoimmune encephalitis, lupus nephritis and collagen induced osteoarthritis colitis were the disease models with the largest number of different scoring systems. Closer analysis of the identified scoring systems revealed a lack of a rationale for the selection of the scoring parameters or a correlation between scoring parameter value and the magnitude of the clinical symptoms in most studies. Conclusion: Although a decision for a particular scoring system is clearly dependent on the respective scientific question this review gives an overview on currently available systems and may therefore allow for a better choice for the respective project.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据