SynthesisArthritis research & therapy2023
Assessment of anti-malondialdehyde-acetaldehyde antibody frequencies in rheumatoid arthritis with new data from two independent cohorts, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
Synthesis in Arthritis research & therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Malondialdehyde-acetaldehyde modified macromolecules and resulting autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis: a Systematic Literature Review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutoantibodies are critical elements in RA pathogenesis and clinical assessment. The anti-malondialdehyde-acetaldehyde (anti-MAA) antibodies are potentially useful because of their claimed high sensitivity for all RA patients, including those lacking RF and anti-CCP antibodies. Therefore, we aimed to replicate these findings.
methodsWe independently attempted replication in Santiago and Barcelona using sera from 517 and 178 RA patients and 272 and 120 healthy controls, respectively. ELISA protocols for anti-MAA antibodies included five antigens (human serum albumin in three formulations, fibrinogen, and a synthetic peptide) and assays for the IgG, IgM, and IgA isotypes. We integrated our results with information found by searching the Web of Science for reports of anti-MAA antibodies in RA. The available patients (4989 in 11 sets) were included in a meta-analysis aimed at heterogeneity between studies. Factors accounting for heterogeneity were assessed with meta-regression.
resultsThe sensitivity of anti-MAA antibodies in our RA patients was low, even in seropositive patients, with the percentage of positives below 23% for all ELISA conditions. Our results and bibliographic research showed IgG anti-MAA positive patients ranging from 6 to 92%. The extreme between-studies heterogeneity could be explained (up to 43%) in univariate analysis by sex, African ethnicity, the site of study, or recruitment from the military. The best model, including African ancestry and smoking, explained a high heterogeneity fraction (74%).
conclusionAnti-MAA antibody sensitivity is extremely variable between RA patient collections. A substantial fraction of this variability cannot be attributed to ELISA protocols. On the contrary, heterogeneity is determined by complex factors that include African ethnicity, smoking, and sex.
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.