CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 195Thyroid Disorders and TreatmentsOphthalmology and Eye DisordersMyasthenia Gravis and Thymoma

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

TSH receptor autoantibody immunoassay in patients with Graves' disease: Improvement of diagnostic accuracy over different generations of methods. Systematic review and meta-analysis

Tozzoli, R., Bagnasco, M., Giavarina, D., Bizzaro, N.·2012·Autoimmunity Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.autrev.2012.07.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background TSH receptor antibodies (TRAb) are the diagnostic hallmark of Graves' disease (GD) and immunoassays for their detection have been available for more than 30 years over three generations of laboratory methods. Despite a growing body of data produced by clinical and laboratory research which demonstrates its elevated sensitivity and specificity, TRAb testing is poorly used for diagnosing GD. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis is to verify the diagnostic performance of TRAb detected with 2nd and 3rd generation immunoassay methods.Methods We searched for English articles using MEDLINE with the search terms "TSH receptor antibody assay", "TSH Receptor antibody tests" and "Graves' disease". We analyzed studies reporting on TSH receptor antibody tests performed by quantitative immunoassays, on untreated patients with GD as the index disease (sensitivity) and on a control group of either healthy subjects or patients affected by other thyroid diseases (specificity). A total of 681 titles were initially identified with the search strategy described. 560 publications were excluded based on abstract and title. Full-text review was undertaken as the next step on 111 publications providing data on TRAb testing; 58 articles were subsequently excluded because they did not include untreated GD patients, or used either bioassays or 1st generation immunoassays. 32 were also excluded because they included data only on sensitivity or only on specificity of the assay, or were duplicates. Finally, 21 articles were selected for meta-analysis. Extraction of data from selected articles was performed by two authors independently, using predefined criteria: the number of patients with GD and the number of healthy or diseased controls; specification of the analytical method used to detect TRAb; sensitivity and specificity of the assay.Results The meta-analysis showed that the overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of the 2nd and 3rd generation TRAb assays are 97.1% and 97.4%, and 98.3% and 99.2%, respectively, with little difference between the types of immunoassay methods employed (human or porcine receptor, manual or automated procedure). The likelihood of a TRAb-positive individual to have GD is 1367- to 3420-fold greater (depending upon the type of assay) compared to a TRAb-negative person.Conclusions Data from the meta-analysis showed that TRAb measured with 2nd and 3rd generation immunoassay methods have very high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of GD. The difference between 2nd and 3rd generation methods is small and is equally useful. In contrast with recommendations made by clinical endocrinologists who are not familiar with the state of the art in diagnostic technologies of autoimmunology laboratories, we propose a wide application of these tests in clinical practice to screen all hyperthyroid patients.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.autrev.2012.07.003

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Adams, 1956, Abnormal responses in the assay of thyrotropin, Proc Univ Otago Med Sch, 34, 11
  2. Gassner, 2007, Development of a new automated assay for thyrotropin receptor autoantibodies on the Elecsys system, Clin Chem, 53, A145

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tozzoli, R., Bagnasco, M., Giavarina, D., & Bizzaro, N.
Affiliations
  • Azienda Ospedaliera Santa Maria Degli Angeli (IT)
  • University of Genoa (IT)
  • Ospedale San Bortolo (IT)
ORCID
Venue
Autoimmunity Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
107-113
ISSN
1568-9972 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.autrev.2012.07.003
OpenAlex
W1967526742
Cited by
195
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Autoimmunity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial Research Information System (University of Genoa) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Thyroid Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Eye Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Myasthenia Gravis and Thymoma
Keywords
TSH receptor antibodies, Graves' disease, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, automated immunoassay, diagnostic performance, thyroid autoimmunity
MeSH terms
Autoantibodies, Graves Disease, Humans, Immunologic Tests, Receptors, Thyrotropin, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Odds Ratio

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review