ArticleJournal of gastroenterology2015
Comparison study of immunohistochemical staining for the diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis.
Article in Journal of gastroenterology, 2015. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor versus IgG4-related inflammatory pseudotumor: differential diagnosis based on a case series.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious methods to evaluate immunohistochemical staining (IHC) for the diagnosis of type 1 autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) have been proposed. Our goal was to determine the most useful IHC method for the diagnosis of AIP.
methodsSpecimens of AIP (18 patients), chronic pancreatitis (CP, 24 patients), and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA, 45 patients) were evaluated with IHC for immunoglobulin G (IgG), IgG1, IgG4, and CD138 (syndecan-1). The number of IHC-positive cells was counted in 3, 5, and 10 different high-power fields (HPFs) by selecting fields with the most numerous positive cells (hotspot) or by randomly selecting fields in the affected areas (random). We evaluated the mean number of IgG4-positive plasma cells (IgG4+)/HPF (mean IgG4+), the number of fields with >10 and >50 IgG4+ (NOF >10 and NOF >50 IgG4+), the ratio of IgG4+/IgG+, IgG4+/IgG1+, and IgG4+/CD138+.
resultsAnalysis with receiver operator characteristic curves revealed that accurate and practical parameters in 3 HPFs were mean IgG4+ with the hotspot method (sensitivity, 88.9; specificity, 92.8 %), mean IgG4+ with the random method (100, 95.7 %), and NOF >10 IgG4+ with the random method (94.4, 97.1 %). These results were as accurate as results from 5 HPFs to 10 HPFs. The combination of mean IgG4+ and IgG4+/IgG+ did not provide more accurate diagnosis for AIP than a single criterion itself.
conclusionsMean IgG4+ or NOF >10 IgG4+ with the random method in 3 HPFs was a useful and simple diagnostic method for AIP. The combined criteria of mean IgG4+ and IgG4+/IgG+ might not be required for accurate diagnosis of AIP.
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.