SynthesisZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2025
Diagnostic accuracy of IgG 4/IgG and IgG 4 in patients with IgG 4-related disease: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2025. 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.
- Clinical characteristics of IgG4-related disease patients with different serum IgG4 levels: A single-center retrospective study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of immunoglobulin G4/Immunoglobulin G (IgG 4/IgG) and immunoglobulin G4 (IgG 4) alone in identifying immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG 4-RD).
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using data from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 2024. Two meta-analyses were performed to assess the diagnostic accuracies of IgG 4/IgG and IgG 4 in IgG 4-RD patients.
resultsEight studies encompassing 754 IgG 4-RD patients and 9496 non-IgG 4-RD controls were included in the analysis. IgG 4/IgG demonstrated a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 91.6%, accurately detecting IgG 4-RD in 89% of cases and correctly identifying non-IgG 4-RD in 91.6% of cases. IgG 4 alone exhibited a higher sensitivity (94.9%) and a similar specificity (91%), indicating a slightly improved ability to identify IgG 4-RD cases. The positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and the negative likelihood ratio (NLR) for IgG 4/IgG were 7580 and 0.132, respectively, while IgG 4 alone had a PLR of 6403 and a lower NLR of 0.066, confirming the high diagnostic reliability. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 62.97 for IgG 4/IgG compared to 105.6 for IgG 4 alone, reflecting enhanced accuracy. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.949 for IgG 4/IgG and 0.986 for IgG 4. The Q* index was 0.889 for IgG 4/IgG and 0.949 for IgG 4, further underscoring the diagnostic effectiveness of IgG 4 alone.
conclusionBoth IgG 4/IgG and IgG 4 are highly accurate markers for diagnosing IgG 4-RD, with IgG 4 alone showing marginally higher sensitivity, DOR, and AUC. This suggests that IgG 4 alone may offer a slight advantage as a diagnostic marker for IgG 4-RD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40072571What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.