ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2020
Characterization of patients with diabetes who were incidentally found to be glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibody-positive by bridging-type enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in endogenous insulin secretion capacity and anti-islet autoantibody titers in two childhood-onset slowly progressive insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus cases.Clinical pediatric endocrinology : case reports and clinical investigations : official journal of the Japanese Society for Pediatric Endocrinology · 2024Article
- Improving diagnostic accuracy of 3 Screen ICA ELISA kit in the identification of Japanese type 1 diabetes.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2023Article
- Adult-onset autoimmune diabetes.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022Review
- Age at Diagnosis and the Risk of Diabetic Nephropathy in Young Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (Diabetes Metab J 2021;45:46-54).Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to characterize diabetic patients incidentally found to be positive for glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies (GADA) in general practice. Using bridging-type enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, we screened 1,040 patients with phenotypic type 2 diabetes for GADA, finding 25 (2.4%) to be positive. However, on retesting, with a median interval of 19 days, 44% of GADA-positive patients turned negative (Disappearing Group). The mean age at diabetes onset was significantly higher (P < 0.05) and GADA titers at first determination were significantly lower (P < 0.001) in the Disappearing Group compared with the Persistent Positive Group. On initial screening, all patients in the Disappearing Group had GADA titers of <6.5 U/mL. The current study showed that a portion of phenotypic type 2 diabetic patients incidentally identified as GADA-positive were falsely positive, and that to avoid the misclassification, remeasurement of GADA is essential in cases showing very low titers.
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.