ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2025
Gamma gap and albumin-globulin ratio show poor sensitivity for monoclonal gammopathy screening in South Africa.
Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Monoclonal gammopathies, including multiple myeloma, present significant challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. Diagnosis is often missed because of limited screening tools. The gamma gap and albumin-globulin ratio (AGR) have been proposed as simple, cost-effective screening methods; however, their utility in settings with prevalent infectious and inflammatory diseases is unclear. Objective: This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of gamma gap and AGR in identifying patients who require further investigation for monoclonal gammopathies in South Africa. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 7946 patients who underwent investigations for monoclonal gammopathies at Groote Schuur Hospital, South Africa, between September 2015 and September 2022 was conducted. Patients were classified based on monoclonal protein detection, and the gamma gap, AGR, and multivariable models were evaluated for diagnostic performance. Results: Among the patients (median age: 61 years, 58% female [4632/7946] and 42% [3314/7946] male patients), 1231 had monoclonal proteins. A gamma gap cutoff of 46 g/L identified 35% of monoclonal cases (sensitivity), with 91% specificity and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.60. The AGR showed a slightly better AUC of 0.63, with 44% sensitivity and 80% specificity at a 0.85 cutoff. Multivariable models incorporating age, sex, and hypogammaglobulinaemia improved performance, with the gamma gap model achieving an AUC of 0.73, improving the sensitivity to 58%, with a specificity of 78%. Conclusion: The gamma gap and AGR showed low sensitivity and moderate specificity in screening for monoclonal gammopathies, highlighting the need for integrated diagnostic approaches combining clinical, demographic, and laboratory data to improve early detection in resource-limited settings. What this study adds: Although cost-effective and widely available, gamma gap and AGR have limited accuracy for screening monoclonal gammopathies when used alone in settings with prevalent infectious and inflammatory diseases. Although the tests are good at ruling out monoclonality, they risk missing many true cases, delaying diagnosis and treatment.
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.