SynthesisSeminars in arthritis and rheumatism2025
Analytical performance of commercial myositis-specific autoantibody tests evaluated against immunoprecipitation assays as a reference standard: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: An EASI survey on current clinical and laboratory practices.Journal of translational autoimmunity · 2026Article
- Juvenile Myositis: Insights on Classification, Pathogenesis, and Therapies Over the Past 50 Years.Arthritis care & research · 2026Review
- Clinical Relevance and Methodological Comparison of Anti-MDA5 Antibody Detection: A Five-Year Retrospective and Exploratory Pilot Study.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Evaluating heterogeneity in MDA-5+ dermatomyositis through cluster analyses.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Article
- Interlaboratory comparison of immunoprecipitation-based testing for myositis-specific autoantibodies.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the analytical performance of commercial myositis-specific autoantibody (MSA) assays against immunoprecipitation (IP) assays.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus through July 2024. Data were extracted on study design, participant characteristics, index tests, and 2 × 2 contingency tables for diagnostic performance. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each dataset and presented as paired forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. A hierarchical SROC model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity for meta-analysis.
resultsOf 3156 articles, 23 met inclusion criteria and were judged to have low risk of bias across all QUADAS-2 domains. The most frequently evaluated commercial assay was the line blot assay (LBA; 16 studies), followed by enzyme immunoassay (EIA; 9 studies). In the meta-analyses, the highest pooled sensitivity was observed for anti-MDA5 with EIA (95.7 %), followed by anti-SAE with LBA (88.3 %), anti-PL-12 with LBA (87.2 %), and anti-Jo-1 and anti-MDA5 with LBA (82.8 %). Lower sensitivities were observed for anti-Mi-2 (67.4 %), anti-NXP2 (69.7 %), and anti-TIF1-γ (63.8 %) with LBA. Pooled specificity ranged from 94.7 % to 99.3 % across MSA assays, but a false-positive result was a common concern for LBA, except for anti-EJ.
conclusionFalse-positive and false-negative results remain a significant challenge in the use of commercial MSA assays.
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.