ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2004
Immunoglobulin (Ig) M antibody against myelin associated glycoprotein (MAG): A comparison of methods.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2004. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-MAG IgM: differences in antibody tests and correlation with clinical findings.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of immunoglobulin (Ig)M antibody against myelin associated glycoprotein (MAG) has been associated with autoimmune demyelinating, sensorimotor neuropathies. Approximately 50% of patients with IgM paraproteinemia and associated peripheral neuropathy possess antibodies against MAG. These autoantibodies are thought to interfere with the process of myelination, myelin maintenance, or axon-Schwann cell interaction. The detection of these autoantibodies is useful to the clinician and is suggestive of active demyelination in a peripheral neuropathy. Our objective in this study was to compare the results obtained using three different methods (dual enzyme immunoassay [EIA], immunofluorescent antibody [IFA] and Western blot [WB]) for detecting IgM antibody against MAG in patients suspected of having autoimmune demyelinating neuropathies. Since the dual EIA utilized two different antigens, results from this assay were separated into two groups: MAG and sulfate-3-glucuronyl paragloboside (SGPG). When compared to WB (gold standard), percent agreement, sensitivity, and specificity for EIA and IFA are as follows: MAG EIA (68.3, 100.0, and 60.6); SGPG EIA (95.1, 100.0, and 93.9); and myelin IFA (97.6, 100.0, and 97.0). The authors conclude that the SGPG EIA and myelin IFA compared well with the standard WB method when detecting IgM antibody against MAG (100 kD). Many sera demonstrated reactivity on the MAG EIA that were negative by WB (100 kD glycoprotein). The authors recommend screening for MAG IgM in suspected patient sera by SGPG EIA or myelin IFA and utilizing these same methods to titer sera confirmed positive by WB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.