4.7 Article

Cut-off values of serum IgG4 among three reagents, including a novel IgG4 reagent: a multicenter study

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-86024-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Committee of IgG4-related Diseases of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan
  2. Japan Pancreas Society
  3. Japanese Society of Gastroenterology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared the measured and cut-off values of serum IgG4 using three different reagents, showing good correlation among the results with the three reagents but different measured and cut-off values. The Nittobo values were 1.4 times higher than the TBS values, and the TBS values were almost half of the Siemens values. ROC curve analysis revealed different cut-off values for the Nittobo, TBS, and Siemens reagents.
Elevated serum IgG4 is a useful marker of IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) activity. However, there is no uniformity in the cut-off values of IgG4 among the various reagents. The aim of this study was to compare the measured and cut-off values of IgG4 assessed using three different reagents. This study enrolled 466 IgG4-RD and non-IgG4-RD patients who required measurement of serum IgG4 levels to diagnose or treat IgG4-RD. Serum IgG4 was measured using three reagents: N-assay LA IgG4 Nittobo (Nittobo), BS-NIA IgG4 (TBS), and N Latex IgG4 (Siemens). The values obtained using the three reagents were compared, and cut-off values were calculated for each. Although there was good correlation among the results with the three reagents, the measured and cut-off values were all different. The Nittobo values were 1.4 times the TBS values and the TBS values were almost half those of the Siemens values. ROC curve analysis showed cut-off values for the Nittobo, TBS, and Siemens reagents of 1.42, 1.31, and 2.38 g/L, respectively. The measured and cut-off values of serum IgG4 vary depending on the reagents used for the assay, although there is good correlation among the values measured by the three reagents.

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

4.7
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