ArticleFrontiers in immunology2020
Anti-TIF-1γ Antibody Detection Using a Commercial Kit vs In-House Immunoblot: Usefulness in Clinical Practice.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immune Characterization of a Vietnamese Cohort With Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies.Muscle & nerve · 2025Article
- Prevalence and clinical significance of anti-SSA antibody in the Chinese health screening population.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2024Article
- Applicability of a serodiagnostic line blot for idiopathic inflammatory myopathy: the muscle biopsy is not all.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- ELISA, protein immunoprecipitation and line blot assays for anti-TIF1-gamma autoantibody detection in cancer-associated dermatomyositis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Profiling of Myositis Specific Antibodies and Composite Scores as an Aid in the Differential Diagnosis of Autoimmune Myopathies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Anti-TIF-1γ autoantibody detection is important for cancer screening in patients with dermatomyositis. The gold standard for anti-TIF-1γ detection, immunoprecipitation, is only available from a few specialized laboratories worldwide, so commercial ELISA/immunoblot tests have emerged in recent years. To analyze their usefulness in diagnosing cancer-associated dermatomyositis, we compared Euroimmun Euroline profile with our previously validated in-house immunoblot assay with human recombinant TIF-1γ. Methods: We included 308 adult patients from Hospital de la Santa Creu I Sant Pau and Vall Hebrón Hospital (Barcelona, Spain) tested for anti-TIF-1γ autoantibodies using the Euroline profile and an in-house immunoblot assay. Results: A total of 27 anti-TIF-1γ were detected by the Euroline and 12 by the in-house assay. Fair agreement was observed between Euroline and the in-house immunoblot Cohen's kappa 0.3163. Expected prevalence of anti-TIF-1γ autoantibodies was observed for the two methods for dermatomyositis and undifferentiated connective tissue diseases, but unexpectedly high prevalence of anti-TIF-1γ autoantibodies was detected by Euroline compared to the in-house immunoblot for other diseases (16.5% Euroline vs 0.8% in-house immunoblot, p<0.01). The in-house IB compared to Euroline more reliably detected cancer in patients with DM with anti-TIF-1γ antibodies (p=0.0014 vs p=0.0502 for in-house immunoblot vs Euroline). Conclusion: We recommend using a second validated method to confirm Euroline-detected anti-TIF-1γ antibodies when the dermatomyositis diagnosis is not definitive. Furthermore, in the context of definite DM diagnosis with negative anti-TIF-1γ antibodies by Euroline and no other myositis specific antibody, is also recommendable to confirm by a second validated method.
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.