Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21477322›Full record

ArticleClinical and molecular allergy : CMA2011

Relevance of laboratory testing for the diagnosis of primary immunodeficiencies: a review of case-based examples of selected immunodeficiencies.

Roshini S Abraham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Clinical pearls and pitfalls in inborn errors of immunity: An expert-derived framework for diagnostic pattern recognition.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Roshini S AbrahamDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. abraham.roshini@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) is one of several in the area of clinical immunology that has not been static, but rather has shown exponential growth due to enhanced physician, scientist and patient education and awareness, leading to identification of new diseases, new molecular diagnoses of existing clinical phenotypes, broadening of the spectrum of clinical and phenotypic presentations associated with a single or related gene defects, increased bioinformatics resources, and utilization of advanced diagnostic technology and methodology for disease diagnosis and management resulting in improved outcomes and survival. There are currently over 200 PIDs with at least 170 associated genetic defects identified, with several of these being reported in recent years. The enormous clinical and immunological heterogeneity in the PIDs makes diagnosis challenging, but there is no doubt that early and accurate diagnosis facilitates prompt intervention leading to decreased morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of PIDs often requires correlation of data obtained from clinical and radiological findings with laboratory immunological analyses and genetic testing. The field of laboratory diagnostic immunology is also rapidly burgeoning, both in terms of novel technologies and applications, and knowledge of human immunology. Over the years, the classification of PIDs has been primarily based on the immunological defect(s) ("immunophenotype") with the relatively recent addition of genotype, though there are clinical classifications as well. There can be substantial overlap in terms of the broad immunophenotype and clinical features between PIDs, and therefore, it is relevant to refine, at a cellular and molecular level, unique immunological defects that allow for a specific and accurate diagnosis. The diagnostic testing armamentarium for PID includes flow cytometry - phenotyping and functional, cellular and molecular assays, protein analysis, and mutation identification by gene sequencing. The complexity and diversity of the laboratory diagnosis of PIDs necessitates many of the above-mentioned tests being performed in highly specialized reference laboratories. Despite these restrictions, there remains an urgent need for improved standardization and optimization of phenotypic and functional flow cytometry and protein-specific assays. A key component in the interpretation of immunological assays is the comparison of patient data to that obtained in a statistically-robust manner from age and gender-matched healthy donors. This review highlights a few of the laboratory assays available for the diagnostic work-up of broad categories of PIDs, based on immunophenotyping, followed by examples of disease-specific testing.

Identifiers

PMID21477322
PMCPMC3080807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.