ArticleJournal of neurology2019
Evaluating the diagnostic utility of new line immunoassays for myositis antibodies in clinical practice: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of tofacitinibThe European respiratory journal · 2025Article
- Clinical relevance of positively determined myositis antibodies in rheumatology: a retrospective monocentric analysis.Arthritis research & therapy · 2024Article
- What should we expect when two myositis-specific antibodies coexist in a patient.European journal of medical research · 2023Article
- Performance of cut-offs adjusted with positive control band intensity in line-blot assays for myositis-specific antibodies.Rheumatology international · 2023Article
- ELISA, protein immunoprecipitation and line blot assays for anti-TIF1-gamma autoantibody detection in cancer-associated dermatomyositis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Under-5-Minute Immunoblot Assays by Vortex Fluidic Device Acceleration.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2022Article
- Profiling of Myositis Specific Antibodies and Composite Scores as an Aid in the Differential Diagnosis of Autoimmune Myopathies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Myositis-Related Interstitial Lung Disease: A Respiratory Physician's Point of View.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Clinical features of acute fibrinous and organizing pneumonia: An early histologic pattern of various acute inflammatory lung diseases.PloS one · 2021Article
- Performance evaluation of a commercial line blot assay system for detection of myositis- and systemic sclerosis-related autoantibodies.Clinical rheumatology · 2020Article
- Top ten discoveries of the year: Neuromuscular disease.Free neuropathology · 2020Article
- The use and diagnostic value of testing myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies by line immuno-assay: a retrospective study.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2020Article
- Frequencies and clinical associations of myositis-related antibodies in The Netherlands: A one-year survey of all Dutch patients.Journal of translational autoimmunity · 2019Article
- Autoantibodies in Myositis. How to Achieve a Comprehensive Strategy for Serological Testing.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2019Review
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
backgroundMyositis-associated antibodies (MAA) and myositis-specific antibodies (MSA) are detected in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM); their role as diagnostic biomarkers is however still debated. The aim of our study was to assess the utility of MAA/MSA assessed by new line immunoassays in detecting myositis among neuromuscular patients.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed sera samples obtained from patients tested for myositis antibodies with the "Euroline: Autoimmune Inflammatory Myopathies 16Ag" and "myositis profile 3" kits (Mi-2, TIF1γ, MDA5, NXP2, SAE1, Jo-1, SRP, PL-7/12, EJ, OJ, Ro-52, Ku, PM-Scl75/100). First symptom, CK, EMG, muscle biopsy and diagnosis were also analysed. Using logistic regression analysis, two diagnostic models were built to evaluate the diagnostic power of MAA/MSA in distinguishing myositis patients from controls and other myopathies.
results1229 patients were identified. 141 patients had a bioptic confirmed IIM; other diagnoses included: myopathy (n = 357), other neuromuscular diseases (n = 144) and no neuromuscular diseases (n = 587). The specificity was 95% for MSA and 89% for MAA, the sensitivity 20% and 22%, respectively. MAA showed no use in differentiating myositis patients from controls, whereas MSA had limited effect (OR = 5.165), compared to other variables as EMG (OR = 47.755) or CK > 2000 U/L (OR = 45.307). MSA were, however, the most useful parameter differentiating IIM from non-IIM patients (OR = 7.259), better than CK > 2000 U/L (OR = 4.033) and MAA (OR = 2.737).
conclusionsLine immunoassays for myositis antibodies show high specificity but low sensitivity. Their usefulness as diagnostic biomarkers widely depends on the clinical settings. Our study suggests that MSA/MAA should be used for confirmatory and differential diagnosis rather than for screening purposes in inflammatory myopathies.
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.