ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2008
Diagnostic accuracy of immunoassays for the detection of antibodies to citrullinated proteins.
Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Evaluation of Four Different Anti-CCP Assays for the Diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Diagnostic Performance Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Autoantibodies in Rheumatoid Arthritis - Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Whither autoimmunity: the lessons of anti-CCP and B cell depletion.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anticitrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPA) are highly specific for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They can be found early in the disease course and are associated with more severe joint destruction and disease activity. In the last 4 years, important progress has been made in the detection and identification of ACPA, improving antigenic composition and epitope recognition. Consequently, many ACPA-ELISA kits have been developed by several manufacturers and are now commercially available. However, albeit their widespread use in clinical laboratories, the use of some kits has not been accompanied by a clinical validation nor by a comparative evaluation of their diagnostic accuracy. In addition, full automation of ACPA assays featuring ease of use, rapid response, and high productivity is just beginning to appear on the market and also deserves clinical and analytical validation. This review will consider the most relevant characteristics of the ACPA-ELISA assays and will describe the results of a comparative study performed with all the currently available second- and third-generation commercial methods.
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.