Comparison of HER2 status using CISH and FISH methodologies
| Reference | Sample size | No. of test sites | Concordance (%)† | κ Coefficient* |
| Tanner et al41 | 157 | 1 | 93.6 | 0.81 |
| Zhao et al45 | 62 | 1 | 100.0 | NS |
| Dandachi et al46 | 38 | 1 | 100.0 | NS |
| Gupta et al47 | 31 | 2 | 83.9 | NS |
| Park et al48 | 188 | 1 | 94.1 | 0.84 |
| Arnould et al49 | 75 | 8 | 96.0 | 0.97 |
| Isola et al50 | 192 | 2 | 93.8 | 0.88 |
| Hauser-Kronberger et al51 | 38 | 1 | 100.0 | NS |
| Bhargava et al52 | 102 | 1 | 100.0 | NS |
| Gong et al53 | 80 | 1 | 95.0 | 0.85–0.91 |
| Lin et al54 | 25 | 1 | 92.0 | NS |
| Li-Ning-T et al55 | 32 | 1 | 96.9 | NS |
| Loring et al56 | 110 | 1 | 99.0 | NS |
| Saez et al57 | 174 | 1 | 94.8 | 0.86 |
| Hanna and Kwok58 | 254 | 1 | 95.1 | 0.91 |
| van de Vijver et al59 | 211 | 5 | 88.6 | NS |
| Cayre et al60 | 55 | 1 | 91.5 | 0.76–0.88 |
| Sinczak-Kuta et al61 | 55 | 1 | NS | 0.53 |
| Di Palma et al62 | 161 | 1 | 100.0 | NS |
| Carbone et al63 | 89 | 5 | 98.9 | NS |
| Di Palma et al64 | 28 | 7 | 98.5 | 0.91 |
| Pothos et al65 | 88 | 1 | 100.0 | NS |
| Gong et al66 | 226 | 2 | 98.8 | 0.93–1.0 |
| Pedersen and Rasmussen67 | 72 | 1 | 98.6 | 0.97 |