ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India2022
The diagnostic utility of rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated protein antibody for rheumatoid arthritis in the Indian population.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Categorization of rheumatoid arthritis into mild, moderate, and severe conditions to discriminate specificity and sensitivity of routine diagnostic serum biomarkers.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Arrhythmias in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Call for a Multidisciplinary Team.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Clinico immunological profile of immune-mediated disorders in South Indian children- A prospective observational study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Extensive study of CCN4, VCAM-1, MMP-3, and GM-CSF as reliable markers for disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.