SynthesisBlood advances2026
Diagnostic utility of immunofixation and free light chain assay in AL amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Blood advances, 2026. 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.
- The light chain hunt: appraising assays in AL amyloidosis.Blood advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractIn this systematic review, we aimed to assess the sensitivity of serum immunofixation (SIFE), urine immunofixation (UIFE), and serum free light chain (sFLC) in detecting plasma cell dyscrasia associated with light chain (AL) amyloidosis. We searched the literature using PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases since inception through March 2024. We included studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of immunofixation and/or sFLC in patients with AL amyloidosis. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) to assess the risk of bias. After deduplication, 29 237 records were screened, and 44 studies (n = 18 071) were included. For the meta-analysis, 28 studies reported sensitivity for SIFE (n = 3390), 24 studies for UIFE (n = 2830), 19 studies for SIFE and UIFE (n = 2819), 21 studies for sFLC ratio (n = 3678), 6 studies for SIFE and sFLC ratio (n = 372), 3 studies for UIFE and sFLC ratio (n = 242), and 10 studies for all 3 tests (n = 1430). Pooled sensitivities were as follows: SIFE, 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.73); UIFE, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.81); SIFE and UIFE, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.93); and sFLC ratio, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.78-0.86). When SIFE, UIFE, and sFLC ratio were combined, the sensitivity reached 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.00). The high sensitivity of combining SIFE, UIFE, and sFLC ratio supports their use as a reliable initial testing strategy to raise suspicion for AL amyloidosis and guide decisions regarding future diagnostic modalities.
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.