ArticleClinical rheumatology2019
Evaluation of 12 different assays for detecting ANCA in Chinese patients with GPA and MPA: a multicenter study in China.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 17 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDue to lack of comprehensive evaluation for various detection methods for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) in Chinese population, we evaluate the diagnostic performance of 12 established analysis methods in Chinese patients having granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).
methodsSera were collected from 209 patients with GPA or MPA and 243 diseases controls from 15 centers. Twelve different reagents were employed for C-ANCA, P-ANCA, myeloperoxidase (MPO)-ANCA, and proteinase 3(PR3)-ANCA detection. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of each method were analyzed.
resultsThe accuracy of the two indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and two line immunoassay (LIA) was 0.838 and 0.874, 0.869, and 0.862, respectively. The accuracy of the eight quantitative antigen-specific immunoassays was varied from 0.867 to 0.967. The sensitivity of ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) was 0.770 and 0.761 for the two IIF, 0.727 and 0.718 for the two LIAs, respectively. For the eight quantitative antigen-specific immunoassays, the sensitivity varied from 0.79 to 0.967. The specificity was 0.897 and 0.971 for the two IIF, 0.992 and 0.988 for the two LIAs, respectively. For the eight quantitative antigen-specific immunoassays, the specificity of AAV varied from 0.963 to 0.983.
conclusionFor Chinese patients suspected of having GPA and MPA, both the first-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and high-quality antigen-specific immunoassay can be used to detect MPO-ANCA and PR3-ANCA alone, without the combined detection with IIF to have good diagnostic performance. The chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) seems to be a method worth recommending.Key points• Quantitative antigen-specific immunoassays can be used to detect MPO-ANCA and PR3-ANCA without IIF in Chinese.• CLIA has the maximum AUC value and the minimum LR (-) value, which seems to be a method worth recommending.
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.