Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38107298›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Comparison of two different TSH-receptor antibody assays: A clinical practice study.

Mathé van Balkum, Marco W J Schreurs, W Edward Visser, Robin P Peeters, Willem A Dik

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mathé van BalkumDepartment of Internal Medicine, the Netherlands.
Marco W J SchreursLaboratory Medical Immunology, Department of Immunology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
W Edward VisserDepartment of Internal Medicine, the Netherlands.
Robin P PeetersDepartment of Internal Medicine, the Netherlands.
Willem A DikLaboratory Medical Immunology, Department of Immunology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences · NLErasmus MC · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Graves' disease (GD) is caused by the production of TSH-receptor (TSHR) stimulating auto-antibodies. Over the years various TSHR-antibody (TRAb) detection assays have been developed. Most clinical laboratories use competitive TSH-binding inhibitory immunoglobulin (TBII) assays, which measure the total amount of stimulating and blocking auto-antibodies. Selective detection of TSHR stimulating auto-antibodies (TSI) was previously only possible with functional cell-based bioassays. However, more recently an automated bridge-based binding assay to more specifically measure TSI has become available. The aim of our study was to compare the third-generation automated competitive immunoassay (TBII) with the automated bridge immunoassay (TSI) in clinical practice in an academic thyroid expert center. Methods: A retrospective study in 356 patients with Graves' disease, Graves orbitopathy (GO), and other (thyroid) disease treated in an academic thyroid center was performed. All samples were analyzed for TBII and TSI. For both assays, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PVV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated using different cut-offs for negativity. Results: Using the provided cut-off, the overall sensitivity appeared similar between TBII and TSI, but TSI showed higher overall specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic odds ratio. Using two or three times the cut-off for negativity resulted in a decrease in sensitivity, but an increase in specificity and PPV, which was most pronounced for the TBII-assay. Analysis in a subgroup of newly diagnosed treatment naïve GD/GO patients also revealed overall favorable results for the TSI-assay. Increasing the cut-off for negativity resulted in increased specificity for both assays, with similar results using two or three times the cut-off. Most patients with concordant positive results for TBII and TSI suffered from GD or GD + GO (n = 110, 95.6 %), while patients negative for both TBII and TSI mostly suffered from other (thyroid) disease (n = 143, 77.3 %). From patients with positive TBII but negative TSI only 42.1 % had GD/GO (n = 16), whereas 57.9 % (n = 22) had other (thyroid) disease. In contrast, 88.9 % of patients with positive TSI but negative TBII had GD/GO (n = 16), whereas 11.1 % (n = 2) had other (thyroid) disease. Conclusion: In our academic thyroid center, the diagnostic performance of the TSI-assay outperformed the TBII-assay. Using a higher cut-off value for negativity can be helpful in assessing clinical relevance.

Indexed as

Graves' diseaseGraves orbitopathyTBIIThyrotropin binding inhibiting immunoglobulinsThyrotropin stimulating immunoglobulinsTRAbTSH-Receptor auto-antibodyTSI

Identifiers

PMID38107298
PMCPMC10724564
OpenAlexW4388798085

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.