ArticleJournal of clinical immunology2023
Clinical Validation of a Primary Antibody Deficiency Screening Algorithm for Primary Care.
Article in Journal of clinical immunology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05310604 (Early Detection of Primary Antibody Deficiencies in Primary Care Facilities by an Algorithm Driven Selection of Serologic Testing in Individuals at Risk.), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Early Detection of Primary Antibody Deficiencies in Primary Care Facilities by an Algorithm Driven Selection of Serologic Testing in Individuals at Risk.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current perspectives and challenges of using artificial intelligence in immunodeficiencies.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Review
- Building alliances for early detection of immunodeficiencies: from primary care to hematology.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Development of an Expert-Based Scoring System for Early Identification of Patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity in Primary Care Settings - the PIDCAP Project.Journal of clinical immunology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe diagnostic delay of primary antibody deficiencies (PADs) is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Therefore, a screening algorithm was previously developed for the early detection of patients at risk of PAD in primary care. We aimed to clinically validate and optimize the PAD screening algorithm by applying it to a primary care database in the Netherlands.
methodsThe algorithm was applied to a data set of 61,172 electronic health records (EHRs). Four hundred high-scoring EHRs were screened for exclusion criteria, and remaining patients were invited for serum immunoglobulin analysis and referred if clinically necessary.
resultsOf the 104 patients eligible for inclusion, 16 were referred by their general practitioner for suspected PAD, of whom 10 had a PAD diagnosis. In patients selected by the screening algorithm and included for laboratory analysis, prevalence of PAD was ~ 1:10 versus 1:1700-1:25,000 in the general population. To optimize efficiency of the screening process, we refitted the algorithm with the subset of high-risk patients, which improved the area under the curve-receiver operating characteristics curve value to 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.63-0.97). We propose a two-step screening process, first applying the original algorithm to distinguish high-risk from low-risk patients, then applying the optimized algorithm to select high-risk patients for serum immunoglobulin analysis.
conclusionUsing the screening algorithm, we were able to identify 10 new PAD patients from a primary care population, thus reducing diagnostic delay. Future studies should address further validation in other populations and full cost-effectiveness analyses. REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov record number NCT05310604, first submitted 25 March 2022.
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.