ReviewInternational journal of women's dermatology2018
New biochip immunofluorescence test for the serological diagnosis of pemphigus vulgaris and foliaceus: A review of the literature.
Review in International journal of women's dermatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of Diagnostic Antibodies in Immune-Mediated Diseases: A Focus on Antigens and Technologies.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2026Review
- State-of-the-art diagnosis of autoimmune blistering diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Diagnostics of autoimmune blistering disorders: an experience of a single tertiary referral centre.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2022Review
- Blistering disorders and their impact on women and their families in theInternational journal of women's dermatology · 2022Article
- Comparative Analysis of BIOCHIP Mosaic-Based Indirect Immunofluorescence with Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay for Diagnosing Myasthenia Gravis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Pemphigus vulgaris - approach and management.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Review
- Serological Diagnosis of Autoimmune Bullous Skin Diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2019Review
- Usefulness of miRNA-338-3p in the diagnosis of pemphigus and its correlation with disease severity.PeerJ · 2018Article
- Diagnosis of Autoimmune Blistering Diseases.Frontiers in medicine · 2018Review
- An observational study to determine the role of indirect immunofluorescence and ELISA for desmogleins in the diagnosis and monitoring of autoimmune bullous disorders.Medical journal, Armed Forces IndiaArticle
- Comparative Analysis of BIOCHIP Mosaic-Based Indirect Immunofluorescence with Direct Immunofluorescence in Diagnosis of Autoimmune Bullous Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.Indian dermatology online journalArticle
- Comparative Analysis of BIOCHIP Mosaic-based Indirect Immunofluorescence with Direct Immunofluorescence in Diagnosis of Autoimmune Bullous Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.Indian dermatology online journalArticle
- Diagnosing Autoimmune Bullous Diseases-An Indian Perspective.Indian dermatology online journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The immunoassays that are available for the serological diagnosis of the more common subtypes of autoimmune blistering diseases such as pemphigus vulgaris (PV) and pemphigus foliaceus (PF) include enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing to specific antigens desmoglein (Dsg)1 and Dsg3, direct immunofluorescence (DIF), indirect immunofluorescence (IIF), and immunoblotting. A review of the literature on the biochip assay was conducted. Six studies investigated the validity of a new biochip, mosaic-based, IIF test in patients with pemphigus and demonstrated its relatively high sensitivity and specificity (Dsg3: 97.62-100%, 99.6-100%; Dsg1: 90%, 100%) in comparison with ELISA (Dsg3: 81-100%, 94-100%; Dsg1: 69-100%, 61.1-100%), and/or IIF (PV: 75-100%, 91.8-100%; PF: 67-100%) using suitable substrates. So far, validation studies of the biochip have been conducted in four countries (Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Poland) but none in the southern hemisphere. Caucasian patients were recruited as normal controls for these studies; thus, the diagnostic value of the biochip remains uncertain in population groups of other ethnicities. A range of disease control patients were recruited including patients with linear immunoglobulin A dermatosis, psoriasis, discoid lupus erythematosus, lichen planus, and noninflammatory skin diseases (e.g., squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and vascular leg ulcers). Prospective studies with control patients from a diverse range of ethnicities are needed to better validate the biochip.
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.