ArticleScientific reports2026
Flow cytometry helps differentiate between mucous membrane pemphigoid and erosive oral lichen planus.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This cross-sectional study investigated the immunophenotype of patients with mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) and erosive oral lichen planus (eOLP) evaluating flow cytometry as additional method in differential diagnosis. Thirty patients (18 MMP and 12 eOLP) were recruited. A blood sample was collected from each patient and B and T lymphocytes subsets were characterized through flow cytometry. Disease severity was additionally scored and MMP patients were characterized as high or low-risk based on the extent of mucosal involvement. Any correlation was finally investigated between the immunophenotype and clinical and serological data. High-risk MMP reported higher frequencies of memory cytotoxic T cells (P < 0.01**), memory helper T cells (P < 0.001***), pre-switch and post-switch memory B cells (P < 0.01**) and lower frequencies of naïve cytotoxic T cells (P < 0.01**), naïve helper T cells (P < 0.001***) and naïve B cells (P < 0.05*) compared to low-risk MMP. Additionally, a significant lower frequency of Th1 cells (P < 0.05*) and memory cytotoxic T cells (P < 0.001***) was found in MMP compared to eOLP and both the biomarkers reported high diagnostic accuracy with an AU-ROC value of 0.76 (P < 0.05*) and 0.86 (P < 0.001***), respectively. No differences between the two diseases were reported in B-cell repertoire. T-cell immunophenotyping mirrors the different pathophysiology of MMP and eOLP and could provide a better understanding of the role of cellular immunity in MMP. MMP and eOLP can share similar clinical manifestations and can be challenging to distinguish through the histological and serological tests currently available. Flowcytometric assessment of T-cell subsets could be potentially useful in differentiating between the two diseases.
Indexed as
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.