ArticleRMD open2022
Multicentre study to improve clinical interpretation of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies test results.
Article in RMD open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining serological scores in rheumatoid arthritis classification: an international study.RMD open · 2026Article
- Clustering reveals diagnostic overlap between Still's disease and a hyperinflammatory subset of seronegative rheumatoid arthritis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Autoantibodies as prognostic markers in rheumatoid arthritis.Journal of translational autoimmunity · 2025Review
- Rheumatoid Factor: Diagnostic and Prognostic Performance and Therapeutic Implications in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Impact of Likelihood Ratios of Rheumatoid Factor and Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibody in Clinical Diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis by Two Available Platforms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Reproductive Effect by Rheumatoid Arthritis and Related Autoantibodies.Rheumatology and therapy · 2024Review
- The mosaic of autoimmunity - Finally discussing in person. The 13Autoimmunity reviews · 2022Article
- Construction of Rheumatoid Arthritis Risk Prediction and Medical Image Applications from Rheumatoid Factor Levels.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
30 authors at 14 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein/peptide antibodies (ACPA) are important biomarkers for diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, there is poor harmonisation of RF and ACPA assays. The aim of this study was to refine RF and ACPA interpretation across commercial assays. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix total RF isotype-non-specific assays, 3 RF IgM isotype-specific assays and 9 ACPA immunoglobulin G assays of 13 different companies were evaluated using 398 diagnostic samples from patients with RA and 1073 disease controls.
resultsUsing cut-offs proposed by the manufacturer, there was a large variability in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity between assays. Thresholds of antibody levels were determined based on predefined specificities and used to define test result intervals. Test result interval-specific likelihood ratios (LRs) were concordant across the different RF and ACPA assays. For all assays, the LR for RA increased with increasing antibody level. Higher LRs were found for ACPA than for RF. ACPA levels associated with LRs >80 were found in a substantial fraction (>22%) of patients with RA.
conclusionDefining thresholds for antibody levels and assigning test result interval-specific LRs allows alignment of clinical interpretation for all RF and ACPA assays.
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.