ArticleCureus2021
Utility of Direct Immunofluorescence in Cutaneous Autoimmune Bullous Disorders.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Autoimmune pemphigus: difficulties in diagnosis and the molecular mechanisms underlying the disease.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic Utility of Immunofluorescence on Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Skin Biopsy.Indian dermatology online journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Autoimmune bullous disorders (AIBD) are a heterogeneous group of disorders with substantial clinical overlap associated with blistering of skin or mucosa. Aims The present study aimed to study the histopathological spectrum and evaluate the utility of direct immunofluorescence (DIF) on snap-frozen and paraffin-embedded sections in resolving the differential diagnosis of AIBD and connective tissue disorders of the skin. We also compared the efficacy of DIF on paraffin versus the snap-frozen sections in diagnosing AIBD. Methods The present study was conducted for three years (2017-2019) and included 27 biopsies. We also included a retrospective analysis that included 25 biopsies collected over three years (2014-2017). Histopathological examination and DIF were conducted on all samples. Results Pemphigus vulgaris was the most common autoimmune cutaneous disorder constituting 37% (n = 10) in prospective and 36% (n = 9) in the retrospective study. DIF showed a specificity of 81.25% in our prospective study. While on the paraffin-embedded sections, it showed a specificity of 66.6% in our retrospective study. In the prospective study, DIF on paraffin-embedded sections had a positivity rate of 43.75% as compared to 81.25% in DIF done on snap-frozen sections. Conclusion DIF is a sensitive tool for the diagnosis as well as distinguishing immune-mediated bullous disorders from other lesions primarily when performed on snap-frozen sections. The diagnostic yield is enhanced by DIF in cases that pose a diagnostic dilemma both clinically and histologically. The final diagnosis depends on all clinical, histopathological and immunofluorescence findings.
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.