ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Detection of Antibodies against the Acetylcholine Receptor in Patients with Myasthenia Gravis: A Comparison of Two Enzyme Immunoassays and a Fixed Cell-Based Assay.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application analysis of transfected cell method for detecting AChR antibodies in MG patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Bead-Based Nonradioactive Immunoassay for Autoantibody Testing in a Mouse Model of Myasthenia Gravis.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Detection of Autoantibodies Against the Acetylcholine Receptor, Evaluation of Commercially Available Methodologies: Fixed Cell-Based Assay, Radioimmunoprecipitation Assay and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay1.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2024Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Seronegative Myasthenia Gravis: Lights and Shadows.Brain sciences · 2023Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The detection of serum anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibodies is currently an important tool for diagnosing myasthenia gravis (MG) since they are present in about 85% of MG patients. Many serological tests are now available. Nevertheless, results from these tests can be different in some patients. The aim of this study is to compare the sensitivity of a commercially available fixed cell-based assay (F-CBA) to that of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits for anti-AChR detection in patients with a diagnosis of MG. Overall, 143 patients with a confirmed MG diagnosis were included in the study. The detection and measurement of serum anti-AChR antibodies were performed by three analytical methods, namely, a competitive ELISA (cELISA), an indirect ELISA (iELISA), and an F-CBA, according to the manufacturers' instructions. Anti-AChR antibody titers were positive in 94/143 (66%) using the cELISA, in 75/143 (52%) using the iELISA and in 61/143 (43%) using the F-CBA (adult and/or fetal). Method agreement, evaluated by concordant pairs and Cohen's kappa, was as follows: cELISA-iELISA: 110/143 (77%), k = 0.53 (95%CI 0.40-0.66); cELISA-F-CBA: 108/143 (76%), k = 0.53 (95%CI 0.41-0.66); iELISA-F-CBA: 121/143 (85%), k = 0.70 (95%CI 0.57-0.80). Our findings show that the cELISA has better analytical performance than the iELISA and F-CBA. However, the iELISA and F-CBA show the highest concordance.
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.