ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Commercial immunoassays in paraneoplastic neurological syndromes: an Australian laboratory perspective.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Clinical approach to neurological paraneoplastic syndromes.Internal medicine journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Paraneoplastic antibodies are implicated in heterogeneous clinical presentations. Commercial immunoassays include indirect immunofluorescence (IIF), and line immunoblot (LIB). LIB can be associated with false positives, and unfortunately, further confirmatory assays are not readily available in diagnostic laboratories. Objectives: To determine frequency of positive LIB on serum or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using EUROLine paraneoplastic neurological syndromes (PNS) 12 Ag Test kit (EuroImmun, Germany) and establish concordance with IIF on Nova Lite kit (Inova Diagnostics, United States) and clinical presentation. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all LIB performed over a four-year period was undertaken. Healthy control samples were also analysed with IIF and LIB. Results: Two thousand and eighty-one LIB samples were processed, 91 (4.4%) were positive from 69 patients with a median age of 64 years. There were 37 females (53.6%). Some samples had two antibody specificities ( Discussion: LIB has a high false positive rate, and in this cohort, there were more false than true positive results. The assay must be used in those with a high clinical suspicion for PNS. While the commercial IIF kit is a useful test, it is insufficient to be used as a screening strategy in isolation.
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.