ArticleJournal of diabetes investigation2023
Comparison of positive rates between glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes.
Article in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging epigenetics and pharmacology through systematic reviews tailored to WBS methodology: the triangle decision-making model as a pioneering translational biological drug delivery system.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Slowly progressive type 1 diabetes and female sex as associated factors for pancreatic abnormalities on diagnostic imaging indicating precancerous potential.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Biochemical Characteristics and Performance of the 3 Screen ICA ELISA Kit.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Estimation of Individual Positive Anti-Islet Autoantibodies from 3 Screen ICA Titer.International journal of molecular 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS/
introductionThis study aimed to compare the positivity rates of glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibodies (GADA) and ElisaRSR™ 3 Screen ICA™ (3 Screen ICA), a newly developed assay for the simultaneous measurement of GADA, insulinoma-associated antigen-2 autoantibodies (IA-2A), and zinc transporter 8 autoantibodies (ZnT8A), in recently obtained sera from patients who had been previously diagnosed with slowly progressive type 1 diabetes (SPIDDM). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe enrolled 53 patients with SPIDDM who were positive for GADA at the diagnosis and 98 non-diabetic individuals, and investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the 3 Screen ICA (cutoff index ≥30 units) compared with that of GADA. In addition, we compared the clinical characteristics of patients with SPIDDM who were negative or positive on 3 Screen ICA.
resultsThe positivity rates of 3 Screen ICA, GADA, IA-2A, and ZnT8A were 88.7, 86.8, 24.5, and 13.2%, respectively. The respective sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for SPIDDM were 88.7, 100, 100, and 94.2% by 3 Screen ICA and 86.8, 100, 100.0, and 93.3% by GADA. There were no significant differences in age at onset, duration of diabetes, body mass index, glycated hemoglobin and C-peptide levels, and the prevalence of autoimmune thyroiditis between patients with SPIDDM who were positive or negative on 3 Screen ICA. However, the prevalence of insulin users was significantly higher in those who were positive than in those who were negative on 3 Screen ICA.
conclusionsSimilar to GADA, 3 Screen ICA may be a useful diagnostic tool for detecting patients with SPIDDM.
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.