ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Diagnostic performance and inter-observer reproducibility of glomerular PLA2R immunohistochemistry in primary membranous nephropathy: a multi-laboratory blinded observer study.
Article in BMC nephrology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPLA2R immunohistochemistry (IHC) and serum anti-PLA2R antibodies are key diagnostic tools in PLA2R-associated membranous nephropathy (MN). However, diagnostic performance and inter-observer reproducibility of PLA2R IHC across different laboratory protocols and cut-offs remain insufficiently validated. We performed local validation of two routine PLA2R IHC protocols and report the methodological considerations that emerged, including the interaction between cut-off selection, diagnostic accuracy, and observer reproducibility.
methodsIn a multi-laboratory study, kidney biopsies from patients with primary MN (pMN), secondary MN, and non-MN controls were stained using two routine PLA2R IHC protocols (Aarhus University Hospital [AUH] and Herlev Hospital [HEH]). Seven blinded observers scored granular capillary wall staining intensity on a 0-3 scale. Diagnostic performance was assessed at a prespecified cut-off (≥ 2) and at protocol-specific optimal cut-offs determined by Youden's J index. Inter-observer agreement for the ordinal scale was quantified using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Reproducibility of dichotomized classifications was evaluated using the ONEST framework, examining overall percent agreement (OPA) across increasing numbers of observers.
resultsAt the prespecified cut-off (≥ 2), sensitivity/specificity was 70%/70% for AUH and 55%/100% for HEH. Applying Youden's J calculated optimal cut-offs (AUH: ≥3; HEH: ≥1) yielded sensitivity/specificity of 65%/100% for AUH and 65%/93% for HEH. Single-rating reliability was good-to-excellent overall [ICC (2,1) = 0.85], with protocol-specific differences (AUH = 0.78; HEH = 0.93), and the seven-observer panel demonstrated excellent reliability [ICC (2,7) = 0.96-0.99]. ONEST analyses demonstrated higher agreement for HEH at the prespecified cut-off (OPA 93% vs. 60%) and earlier stabilization of agreement curves, whereas AUH remained sensitive to panel size throughout the seven-observer range. Diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility were not fully aligned for the HEH protocol: Youden's J favored cut-off ≥ 1, whereas reproducibility was highest at ≥ 2.
conclusionPLA2R IHC provides clinically useful diagnostic information for PLA2R-associated MN, but performance and reproducibility are protocol-dependent and were optimized at different cut-offs. Laboratories should therefore validate both dimensions locally rather than adopting a single fixed cut-off. We propose a stepwise framework combining Youden's J and ONEST as a practical guide for laboratories implementing PLA2R IHC.
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.