ArticleThe Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques2020
Testing for
Article in The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The distinctive psychopathology of NMDAR-antibody encephalitis compared with primary psychoses: an international, multicentre, retrospective phenotypic analysis.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2026Article
- A narrative review of identifying the culprit antibody in neuroimmune diseases: concept and clinical significance.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Brain rhythmic abnormalities in convalescent patients with anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis: a resting-state EEG study.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Improving Early Recognition of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Mimics.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2022Article
- Autoimmune Neurology: The Need for Comprehensive Care.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2021Review
- Searching for autoimmune encephalitis: Beware of normal CSF.Journal of neuroimmunology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of anti-N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) encephalitis relies on the detection of NMDAR IgG autoantibodies in the serum or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of symptomatic patients. Commercial kits are available that allow NMDAR IgG autoantibodies to be measured in local laboratories. However, the performance of these tests outside of reference laboratories is unknown.
objectivesTo report an unexpectedly low rate of NMDAR autoantibody detection in serum from patients with anti-NMDAR encephalitis tested using a commercially available diagnostic kit in an exemplar clinical laboratory.
methodsPaired CSF and serum samples from seven patients with definite anti-NMDAR encephalitis were tested for NMDAR IgG autoantibodies using commercially available cell-based assays run according to manufacturer's recommendations. Rates of autoantibody detection in serum tested at our center were compared with those derived from systematic review and meta-analyses incorporating studies published during or before March 2019.
resultsNMDAR IgG autoantibodies were detected in the CSF of all patients tested at our clinical laboratory but not in paired serum samples. Rates of the detection were lower than those previously reported. A similar association was recognized through meta-analyses, with lower odds of NMDAR IgG autoantibody detection associated with serum testing performed in nonreference laboratories.
conclusionsCommercial kits may yield lower-than-expected rates of NMDAR IgG autoantibody detection in serum when run in exemplar clinical (nonreference) laboratories. Additional studies are needed to decipher the factors that contribute to lower-than-expected rates of serum positivity. CSF testing is recommended in patients with suspected anti-NMDAR encephalitis.
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.