Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36863752›Full record

SynthesisRMD open2023

Type I interferon pathway assays in studies of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider.

Agata Burska, Javier Rodríguez-Carrio, Robert Biesen, Willem A Dik, Maija-Leena Eloranta, Giulio Cavalli, Marianne Visser, Dimitrios T Boumpas, George Bertsias, Marie Wahren-Herlenius and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

17 authors at 11 institutions in 12 countries.

Agata Burska *Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds & NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK.
Javier Rodríguez-Carrio *University of Oviedo, Area of Immunology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias (ISPA), Oviedo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0011-5102
Robert BiesenCharité University Medicine Berlin, Department of Rheumatology, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0434-7832
Willem A DikErasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Laboratory Medical Immunology, Department of Immunology, Rotterdam, Netherlands Immunology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maija-Leena ElorantaUppsala University, Department of Medical Sciences, Rheumatology, Uppsala, Sweden.
Giulio CavalliUnit of Immunology, Rheumatology, Allergy and Rare Diseases, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Marianne VisserUniversity of Crete, Medical School, Department of Internal Medicine, Heraklion, Greece.
Dimitrios T BoumpasUniversity of Crete, Medical School, Department of Rheumatology-Clinical Immunology, Heraklion, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-9812-4671
George BertsiasUniversity of Crete, Medical School, Department of Rheumatology-Clinical Immunology, Heraklion, Greece.
Marie Wahren-HerleniusKarolinska Institutet, Division of Rheumatology, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0915-7245
Jan RehwinkelMedical Research Council Human Immunology Unit, Medical Research Council Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, UK.
Marie-Louise FrémondUniversité de Paris Cité, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Immuno-Hématologie et Rhumatologie pédiatriques, Paris, France.
Mary K CrowHospital for Special Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research, New York, USA.
Lars RonnblomUppsala University, Department of Medical Sciences, Rheumatology, Uppsala, Sweden.
P G ConaghanLeeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds & NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3478-5665
Marjan Versnel *Erasmus MC, Department of Immunology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ed Vital *Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds & NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, UK E.M.J.Vital@leeds.ac.uk.
University of Crete · GRUniversity of Leeds · GBErasmus MC · NLUppsala University · SECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHôpital Necker-Enfants Malades · FRHospital for Special Surgery · USKarolinska Institutet · SEUniversidad de Oviedo · ESUniversity of Oxford · GBVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_UU_00008/8
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review the literature for assay methods that aim to evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway activation and to harmonise-related terminology.

methodsThree databases were searched for reports of IFN-I and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. Information about the performance metrics of assays measuring IFN-I and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. A EULAR task force panel assessed feasibility and developed consensus terminology.

resultsOf 10 037 abstracts, 276 fulfilled eligibility criteria for data extraction. Some reported more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 276 papers generated data on 412 methods. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). Principles of each assay are summarised for content validity. Concurrent validity (correlation with other IFN assays) was presented for n=150/412 assays. Reliability data were variable and provided for 13 assays. Gene expression and immunoassays were considered most feasible. Consensus terminology to define different aspects of IFN-I research and practice was produced.

conclusionsDiverse methods have been reported as IFN-I assays and these differ in what elements or aspects of IFN-I pathway activation they measure and how. No 'gold standard' represents the entirety of the IFN pathway, some may not be specific for IFN-I. Data on reliability or comparing assays were limited, and feasibility is a challenge for many assays. Consensus terminology should improve consistency of reporting.

Indexed as

Interferon Type IMusculoskeletal DiseasesRheumatic DiseasesAdvisory CommitteesHumansReproducibility of ResultsInterferon Type IArthritis, RheumatoidCytokinesInflammationLupus Erythematosus, Systemic

Identifiers

PMID36863752
PMCPMC9990675
OpenAlexW4323036851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.