Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36147402›Full record

ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India2022

The diagnostic utility of rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated protein antibody for rheumatoid arthritis in the Indian population.

Abhishek Kumar, Vivek Vasdev, Saroj Kumar Patnaik, Satyam Bhatt, Ramakant Singh, Aprajita Bhayana, Arun Hegde, Ashwani Kumar

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Abhishek KumarClassified Specialist (Medicine) & Rheumatologist, Command Hospital (Eastern Command), Kolkata, India.
Vivek VasdevProfessor & Head, Department of Geriatrics Medicine, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, India.
Saroj Kumar PatnaikProfessor & Head (Pediatrics), Army Hospital (R&R), New Delhi, India.
Satyam BhattResident (Rheumatology), Army Hospital (R&R), New Delhi, India.
Ramakant SinghClassified Specialist (Medicine) & Rheumatologist, INHS Ashvini, Colaba, Mumbai, India.
Aprajita BhayanaGraded Specialist (Aerospace Medicine), SMC, Air Force Station, Palam, New Delhi, India.
Arun HegdeSenior Advisor (Medicine) & Rheumatologist, Command Hospital (Southern Command), Pune, India.
Ashwani KumarClassified Specialist (Medicine) & Rheumatologist, Army Hospital (R&R), New Delhi, India.
Army Hospital Research and Referral · INCommand Hospital · INArmed Forces Medical College · INIndian Air Force · ININHS Asvini · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is lack of Indian data on diagnostic utility of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) for diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and prevalence of these antibodies in patients with RA and the healthy population. The study was aimed to assess the diagnostic utility and prevalence of RF and ACPA at different titers in the Indian scenario. Method: All the patients of RA fulfilling the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) 2010 classification criteria and age and gender-matched healthy controls were included in the study. RF and ACPA were measured by nephelometry and the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method, respectively. Result: Of 803 patients (291 men and 512 women) included, the RF was positive in 566 (70.5%) study patients. The ACPA was positive in 527 (71.7%) patients of 735 of them. Among 408 healthy controls, 45 (11%) were RF positive and 19 (4.7%) were ACPA positive.At the positive cutoff level, the RF had a specificity of 87.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 84.4-90.8; positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 5.7). Specificity at 2 and 3 times above the upper limit of normal (ULN) increased to 96.2% (95% CI = 94.3-98.1; LR+ 15.7) and 97.1% (95% CI = 95.5-98.7; LR+ 17.1), respectively.The specificity of ACPA at the positive cutoff level was 94.4% (95% CI = 92.2-96.6; LR+ 12.7), which increased to 98% (95% CI = 96.6-99.4), at 2xULN level. The likelihood ratio for ACPA at all cutoff levels measured was more than 10. Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of RF and ACPA in our study population are comparable with those of other studies. ACPA at lower titers may have sufficient diagnostic utility for RA in an appropriate clinical setting.

Indexed as

Anticitrullinated protein antibodyDiagnosisRheumatoid arthritisRheumatoid factorSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID36147402
PMCPMC9485759
OpenAlexW3043384316

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.