SynthesisZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2017
Diagnostic accuracy of anti-Sa and anti-RA33 antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2017. 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.
- Autoantibodies in Rheumatoid Arthritis - Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Combining Calcitonin and Procalcitonin and Rheumatoid Arthritis-Related Biomarkers Improve Diagnostic Outcomes in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis.Disease markers · 2021Article
- Determination of Autoantibody Isotypes Increases the Sensitivity of Serodiagnostics in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of anti-Sa and anti-RA33 antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant studies, and 2 meta-analyses were performed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of anti-Sa and anti-RA33 antibodies in patients with RA.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 17 studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of anti-Sa antibody were 39.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 36.5-42.4) and 96.8 % (95 % CI 95.9-97.4), respectively, and those of anti-RA33 antibody were 31.8 % (95 % CI 28.7-35.0) and 90.1 % (95 % CI 87.8-92.1), respectively. PLR, NLR, and DOR of anti-Sa antibody were 14.11 (95 % CI 7.076-28.13), 0.607 (95 % CI 0.558-0.703), and 22.76 (95 % C, 11.10-46.69), respectively, and those of anti-RA33 antibody were 3.429 (95 % CI 2.039-5.765), 0.761 (95 % CI 0.681-0.851), and 4.597 (95 % CI 2.602-8.121), respectively. AUC and Q
conclusionsOur meta-analysis indicated that both anti-Sa and anti-RA33 antibodies were highly specific but not sensitive for diagnosing RA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27312463What 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.