ArticleClinical and experimental immunology2021
Analysis of scoring systems for primary immunodeficiency diagnosis in adult immunology clinics.
Article in Clinical and experimental immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and immunologic features of adult primary antibody deficiency according to IVIGRT exposure.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Electronic health record signatures identify undiagnosed patients with common variable immunodeficiency disease.Science translational medicine · 2024Article
- Cluster analysis of flowcytometric immunophenotyping with extended T cell subsets in suspected immunodeficiency.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2023Article
- Extended List of Warning Signs in Qualification to Diagnosis and Treatment of Inborn Errors of Immunity in Children and Young Adults.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- The lung in inborn errors of immunity: From clinical disease patterns to molecular pathogenesis.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Failure to spot the signs of primary immunodeficiency (PID) often results in delayed diagnosis. Scoring systems to identify PID exist, such as the immunodeficiency disease-related (IDR) score. This research aims to analyse and improve the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the IDR scoring system in a small preselected group of adult patients referred to immunology with clinical suspicion of a PID. Records of all patients presenting for the first time to an adult immunology clinic in 2018 at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, were scored using the unmodified IDR score and modified versions of it. Included records were searched for a subsequent diagnosis of PID, and the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the scoring systems were analysed. Of 400 patients, 213 were excluded: 141 due to secondary immunodeficiency, 69 due to no clinical suspicion of a PID, and hence no investigation for PID, and three due to ongoing diagnostic investigations. Of 187 included patients, 71 were found to have a clinically significant PID. The unmodified IDR score was useful in discriminating between those with and without PID. Modification of the scoring system with seven additional criteria improved the sensitivity and specificity for PID diagnosis to the greatest extent. A modified IDR score with seven additional criteria validated in adults referred to immunology with suspicion of a PID could be used clinically to aid PID diagnosis, although further validation in different patient cohorts is required before it is used in other contexts.
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.