Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31592328›Full record

ArticleLupus science & medicine2019

Randomised prospective trial to assess the clinical utility of multianalyte assay panel with complement activation products for the diagnosis of SLE.

Daniel J Wallace, Roberta Vezza Alexander, Tyler O'Malley, Arezou Khosroshahi, Mehrnaz Hojjati, Konstantinos Loupasakis, Jeffrey Alper, Yvonne Sherrer, Maria Fondal, Rajesh Kataria and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lupus science & medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Finding lupus in the ANA haystack.Lupus science & medicine · 2020
    Review
  5. Observational
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel J WallaceCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Roberta Vezza AlexanderExagen, Vista, Caifornia, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8827-8637
Tyler O'MalleyExagen, Vista, Caifornia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4439-1395
Arezou KhosroshahiEmory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Mehrnaz HojjatiLoma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, USA.
Konstantinos LoupasakisMedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Jeffrey AlperBendcare, Naples, Florida, USA.
Yvonne SherrerBendcare, Naples, Florida, USA.
Maria FondalBendcare, Naples, Florida, USA.
Rajesh KatariaSouthern Ohio Rheumatology, Wheelersburg, Ohio, USA.
Tami PowellExagen, Vista, Caifornia, USA.
Claudia IbarraExagen, Vista, Caifornia, USA.
Sonali NarainNorthwell Health, Great Neck, New York, USA.
Elena MassarottiBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Arthur WeinsteinExagen, Vista, Caifornia, USA.
Thierry DervieuxExagen, Vista, Caifornia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3799-4438
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USEmory University · USGeorgetown University · USLoma Linda University · USMedStar Washington Hospital Center · USNorthwell Health · USOhio University Southern · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe compared the physician-assessed diagnostic likelihood of SLE resulting from standard diagnosis laboratory testing (SDLT) to that resulting from multianalyte assay panel (MAP) with cell-bound complement activation products (MAP/CB-CAPs), which reports a two-tiered index test result having 80% sensitivity and 86% specificity for SLE.

methodsPatients (n=145) with a history of positive antinuclear antibody status were evaluated clinically by rheumatologists and randomised to SDLT arm (tests ordered at the discretion of the rheumatologists) or to MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm. The primary endpoint was based on the change in the physician likelihood of SLE on a five-point Likert scale collected before and after testing. Changes in pharmacological treatment based on laboratory results were assessed in both arms. Statistical analysis consisted of Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests.

resultsAt enrolment, patients randomised to SDLT (n=73, age=48±2 years, 94% females) and MAP/CB-CAPs testing arms (n=72, 50±2 years, 93% females) presented with similar pretest likelihood of SLE (1.42±0.06 vs 1.46±0.06 points, respectively; p=0.68). Post-test likelihood of SLE resulting from randomisation in the MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm was significantly lower than that resulting from randomisation to SDLT arm on review of test results (-0.44±0.10 points vs -0.19±0.07 points) and at the 12-week follow-up visit (-0.61±0.10 points vs -0.31±0.10 points) (p<0.05). Among patients randomised to the MAP/CB-CAPs testing arm, two-tiered positive test results associated significantly with initiation of prednisone (p=0.034).

conclusionOur data suggest that MAP/CB-CAPs testing has clinical utility in facilitating SLE diagnosis and treatment decisions.

Indexed as

clinical utilitydiagnosislaboratory testsystemic lupus erythematosus

Identifiers

PMID31592328
PMCPMC6762037
OpenAlexW2974487453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.