ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Clinical Utility of Routine Monoclonal Gammopathy Testing in the Evaluation of Peripheral Neuropathy.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral neuropathy can be associated with certain monoclonal gammopathies; therefore, monoclonal protein testing is routinely performed in the evaluation of this symptom. However, limited data exist regarding the utility of monoclonal protein testing for this indication. Data suggest those receiving a new monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) diagnosis have similar rates of diagnosis-related anxiety when compared to those receiving a myeloma diagnosis (Maatouk et al., Blood Cancer J 9(2), 2019; Adami et al., Eur J Clin Invest 49(3), 2019; Rögnvaldsson et al., Blood Cancer J 11(5):1-13, 2021).
objectiveTo quantify the utility of monoclonal protein testing with respect to early detection of malignancy or determining etiology of peripheral neuropathy. DESIGN/
participantsWe reviewed records of patients who received monoclonal protein testing for neuropathy as per ICD-10 codes at our institution during 2021 (n=1436). All those with previously diagnosed monoclonal gammopathies were excluded (n=37). Clinical utility was defined as finding a new lymphoplasmacytic neoplasm diagnosis, or if the neuropathy was ultimately attributed to the monoclonal gammopathy identified with testing. KEY
resultsAmong 1399 patients receiving monoclonal protein testing, 148 (10.6%) were diagnosed with monoclonal gammopathy, the majority (98.6%) being MGUS. As a result of monoclonal gammopathy screening, neuropathy was ultimately attributed to monoclonal gammopathy in 12 patients (0.8% total), and two patients (0.1%) were diagnosed with a lymphoplasmacytic malignancy as a result of monoclonal protein testing.
conclusionsIn the evaluation of peripheral neuropathy, routine monoclonal protein testing has low clinical utility. In our study, greater than 1 in 10 patients screened were diagnosed with MGUS, while less than 1 in 100 patients were determined to have neuropathy attributable to monoclonal gammopathy. Our data suggest the test performance of monoclonal protein testing for the indication of peripheral neuropathy without other findings to suggest an underlying paraproteinemic process, such as bony pain, renal dysfunction, or unexplained anemia, is poor, and this test should be reserved for individuals in whom alternative diagnoses are first considered and excluded.
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.