4.6 Article

Meta-Analysis: Diagnostic Accuracy of Anti-Carbamylated Protein Antibody for Rheumatoid Arthritis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159000

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Special Fund for Public Welfare Industry of Health [201202004]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172857, 81373188, 81302591]
  3. Chinese National High Technology Research and Development Program, Ministry of Science and Technology [2011AA02A113]
  4. Key Projects in the National Science and Technology Pillar Program in the Twelfth Five-year Plan Period [2014BAI07B00]
  5. Capital Health Research and Development of Special Fund [2014-1-4011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The anti-carbamylated protein (CarP) antibody is a novel biomarker that might help in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aim to assess the diagnostic value of anti-CarP antibody for RA. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus for studies published by December 15, 2015. Studies in any language that evaluated the utility of the anti-CarP antibody in the diagnosis of RA in which healthy donors or patients without arthritis or arthralgia served as controls were included. Two investigators independently evaluated studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and abstracted data. A bivariate mixed-effects model was used to summarize the diagnostic indexes from 7 eligible studies. Results The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for anti-CarP antibody were 42% (95% CI, 38% to 45%), 96% (95% CI, 95% to 97%), 10.2 (95% CI, 7.5 to 13.9), and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.65), respectively. The summary diagnostic odds ratio was 17 (95% CI, 12 to 24), and the area under summary receiver operator characteristic curve was 80% (95% CI, 77% to 84%). Conclusion Anti-CarP antibody has a moderate value in the diagnosis of RA with high specificity but relatively low sensitivity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据