ArticleJournal of translational autoimmunity2025
A comparative study of different assays for autoantibodies detection in patients with autoimmune gastritis.
Article in Journal of translational autoimmunity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gastric Mucosa Cancer Risk: The Operative Link on Gastritis Assessment Staging System.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2026Review
- Autoimmune gastritis: emerging insights and clinical management.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Autoimmune gastritis: a comprehensive review of pathophysiology, risk stratification, and management.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
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
Objective: Autoimmune gastritis (AIG) is an important health problem and a risk factor for gastric neoplasms. This study assessed the diagnostic performance of different assays for anti-parietal cell antibodies (APCA) and anti-intrinsic factor antibodies (AIFA) in patients with histologically confirmed AIG. Methods: This prospective, multicenter study included 50 AIG patients and 93 controls. The diagnostic performance of fluorescent enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) and immunoblot was evaluated for the detection of both APCA and AIFA, while indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) was assessed for APCA only. Results: Overall, AIFA detection using FEIA demonstrated slightly better performance (specificity [Sp] 100 %, positive predictive value [PPV] 100 %, negative predictive value [NPV] 75 %) compared to immunoblot (Sp 98.9 %, PPV 94.1 %, NPV 73 %). However, both methods showed low sensitivity (Se): 38 % for FEIA and 32 % for immunoblot. When the FEIA cut-off was adjusted using ROC curve analysis, Se increased to 50 %, while maintaining high Sp (98.9 %). For APCA detection, Se was similar across all methods (∼80 %), but Sp varied: immunoblot showed lower Sp (89.3 %) compared to IIF (98.8 %) and FEIA (95.7 %). PPV was highest for IIF (97.5 %), followed by FEIA (89.9 %) and immunoblot (89.3 %). NPV was lowest for immunoblot (80 %), while IIF and FEIA showed comparable values (89.5 % and 90.9 %, respectively). Adjusting the FEIA cut-off for APCA increased Sp to 98.9 % without reducing Se (76 %). Combining AIFA and APCA testing improved diagnostic performance, yielding a sensitivity of 90 % and specificity of 95.7 %. Conclusions: FEIA offers superior diagnostic accuracy for APCA and AIFA testing in AIG. The highest diagnostic yield for AIG is observed when both APCA and AIFA are assessed. This approach could be clinically applicable in the screening for AIG and diagnostic process of AIG.
Identifiers
What 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.