Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34220011›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB2021

Audit of the Prevalence of Noncorrelation of Immunofixation with Protein Electrophoresis and Serum Free Light Chain Assays in Multiple Myeloma in a Tertiary Cancer Care Center.

Chandramallika Paul, Subhosmito Chakraborty, S Sugumar, Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sandip Rath, Sarit Chakraborty

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chandramallika PaulDepartment of Biochemistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)-Kalyani, NH-34 Connector, Basantapur Saguna, Kalyani, West Bengal 741245 India.
Subhosmito ChakrabortyDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, TATA Medical Center, Kolkata, India.
S SugumarDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, TATA Medical Center, Kolkata, India.
Ranjan BhattacharyaDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, TATA Medical Center, Kolkata, India.
Sandip RathDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, TATA Medical Center, Kolkata, India.
Sarit ChakrabortyDepartment of Computer Science Engineering, Government College of Engineering and Leather Technology, Kolkata, 700106 India.
Tata Medical Center · INAll India Institute of Medical Sciences Raipur · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) is diagnosed and monitored by correlating panel of test results including serum Protein electrophoresis (SPE), Immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE), serum Free Light chain (sFLC) measurements. This audit is aimed to evaluate the prevalence of non-correlation and discrepancies amongst the three investigations (SPE/IFE/sFLC) for assessment of MM. 106 MM patients were reviewed over 16 months in a tertiary cancer care center by the availability of 3 serum test results (SPE/IFE/sFLC). Patients were divided into 2 groups: group1, newly diagnosed MM patients who were yet to receive myeloma specific treatment (n = 48); and group2, already diagnosed MM patients on treatment and followup (n = 58). Treatment modalities included stem cell transplantation and standard chemotherapy regimens. Non-correlation between the three test results (IFE/SPE/sFLC) was observed (21% in group1 and 45% in group2). Three types of discrepancies were detected as follows: (a) IFE showing less number of restriction bands as compared to SPE (8.6% patients in group2); (b) SPE/IFE negative with an abnormal sFLC ratio (12.5% patients in group1 and 13.7% in group2); (c) SPE/IFE positive but normal sFLC ratio (8% in group1 and 22% in group2). To conclude, IFE may sometimes provide information that does not always correlate with either of the SPE or sFLC results due to different sensitivities, antigen-antibody interactions, or treatment. Hence, SPE plus sFLC may be more useful particularly for patients on follow-up while IFE plus sFLC may help screen the new patients. The judicious selection of the biochemical assays can effectively reduce the treatment cost in a developing country like India.

Indexed as

DiscrepancyIFEMMsFLCSPE

Identifiers

PMID34220011
PMCPMC8215009
OpenAlexW3087505524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.