English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Almost always, Congo red-stained amyloid between polariser and analyser is said to show “green birefringence” or “apple-green birefringence”. In 2010, we found that not all published images showed green, and not all that did showed only green. This systematic review of more recent papers was to find if there had been any improvement in the accuracy of reporting. MEDLINE was searched on 15 March 2021 for papers published between 2010 and 2020 inclusive mentioning amyloid and Congo red. These were examined for descriptions of colours, which were compared with images. Papers were searched for mentions of anomalous colours, errors in physical optics, and misquotation of references about polarisation. In 374 papers, there were 444 descriptions of colours, with 511 images in 257 papers. The commonest descriptions were apple-green, 249 / 444 (56%), and green, 105 / 444 (24%). The description agreed with colours seen in 116/511 images (23%) (previously 64/191, 34%). Green was seen in 342 / 511 images (67%) (previously 159/191, 83%), but not in 169 / 511 (33%), although each image was reported to show green. Green alone was seen in 103 / 511 images (20%) (previously 59/191, 31%), and was combined with at least one other colour in 239 / 511 (47%). Ten papers included the term anomalous. Eight papers incorrectly said that there was green dichroism, three incorrectly used the term green metachromasia, and two incorrectly mentioned green fluorescence. Twenty-seven papers misquoted references. There is widespread and increasing inaccuracy of reporting of colours seen in Congo red-stained amyloid. People persist in saying “green birefringence” or “apple-green birefringence”, even when no green is seen, or there are also other colours. Few appear to appreciate that the other colours are genuine, respectable, and helpful, the physical optical principles that explain the colours are now understood, and the best expression to use is anomalous colours.KEY MESSAGE“Green birefringence” and “apple-green birefringence” are inappropriate terms to describe the findings in amyloid stained with Congo red and examined between crossed polariser and analyser, because green is not always seen, and even when it is, other colours are commonly seen as well. The proportions of colour images showing any green and green alone, and the proportion of descriptions that agreed with illustrated colours, significantly decreased in 2010–2020 compared with earlier. The most appropriate and scientific description of the findings is anomalous colours. “Green birefringence” and “apple-green birefringence” are inappropriate terms to describe the findings in amyloid stained with Congo red and examined between crossed polariser and analyser, because green is not always seen, and even when it is, other colours are commonly seen as well. The proportions of colour images showing any green and green alone, and the proportion of descriptions that agreed with illustrated colours, significantly decreased in 2010–2020 compared with earlier. The most appropriate and scientific description of the findings is anomalous colours.

Systematic review of accuracy of reporting of Congo red-stained amyloid in 2010–2020 compared with earlier