ArticleClinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology1996
Lack of agreement among two commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent antibody assays and a conventional immunofluorescence-based method for detecting islet cell autoantibodies.
Article in Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology, 1996. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current methods for detecting antibodies against erythropoietin and other recombinant proteins.Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology · 2005Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for antibodies associated with development of insulin-dependent (type 1) diabetes mellitus (IDDM) were evaluated in conjunction with a conventional indirect immunofluorescent-antibody-islet cell antibody (ICA) test and a radioimmunoprecipitation method for detection of insulin autoantibodies in sera from a selected group of patients. The anti-ICA ELISA was positive for only 1 to 17 serum samples from newly diagnosed IDDM patients but yielded false-positive results with 2 of 6 serum samples containing non-diabetes-related autoantibodies. Although the anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase ELISA did not show positive results for sera with other autoantibodies, it was positive for only 4 of 29 serum samples from recently diagnosed IDDM patients and for 49% of 37 indirect immunofluorescent-antibody-ICA test-positive sera. Until the antibodies associated with the development of diabetes are better characterized, allowing better standards for comparison, it will be difficult to evaluate commercial assays in this field.
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.