ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2016
Diagnostic Performance of an Anti-Actin Autoantibody Binding Enzyme Immunodot Blot in Autoimmune Hepatitis Type 1.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2016. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a Ten-Antigen Immunodot Test in Autoimmune Hepatitis and Primary Biliary Cholangitis: Lessons Learned for a Tertiary Care Academic Hospital.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
backgroundA serologic hallmark of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) type 1 are anti-smooth muscle autoantibodies (ASMA) with specificity for filamentous actin (F-actin; AAA (anti-actin antibodies)), traditionally detected by indirect immunofluorescence (IFT) using rat liver, kidney, and stomach tissue sections as substrates. However, IFT is a subjective method requiring an experienced investigator. Therefore, a more objective technique for the detection of AAA may be a helpful diagnostic tool.
methodsIn a retrospective study with cross-sectional design, we evaluated AAA detected by an enzyme immunodot blot (IDB; Liver5 IgG BlueDot, D-tek, Mons, Belgium). Serum samples of patients with AIH type 1 (n = 47) and specified controls (n = 142) were included. For comparison, standard IFT was applied to rat LKS (liver, kidney, stomach) triple tissue sections.
resultsIDB readings were done by two independent investigators (92% concordance). The diagnostic sensitivity of the AAA-IDB was 70%, compared to 51% of AAA-IFT (n.s.). The diagnostic specificity of AAA-IDB was significantly lower compared to AAA-IFT (76% vs. 94%; P < 0.0005). Correspondingly, the positive predictive value (49% vs. 75%; P < 0.05) and positive likelihood ratio (2.9 vs. 8.5) differed significantly. Neither prescreening for ANA or ASMA, nor the exclusion of infectious hepatopathies resulted in a significantly better diagnostic performance of the IDB.
conclusionCompared to standard IFT, testing for AAA via IDB did not result in a significantly better diagnostic performance for AIH type 1. A blot with higher antigen binding specificity may be more functional.
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.