↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Serum Anti-PLA2R Autoantibodies and Glomerular PLA2R Antigen for Diagnosing Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Serum Anti-PLA2R Autoantibodies and Glomerular PLA2R Antigen for Diagnosing Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy: An Updated Meta-Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00101
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weiying Li, Yuliang Zhao, Ping Fu

Abstract

M-type phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R) is known as a major antigen on podocytes, which is involved with the pathogenesis of idiopathic membranous nephropathy (iMN). Many studies have shown that serum anti-PLA2R autoantibodies (sPLA2R) are prevalent in patients with iMN but are rarely detected in secondary membranous nephropathy (SMN) or other glomerulonephritis. The anti-PLA2R is considered as a promising serum biomarker in iMN but reports about its diagnostic value are variable and inconsistent. To evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of anti-PLA2R and glomerular PLA2R antigen (gPLA2R) for diagnosing iMN. MEDLINE, EMBASE, WEB OF SCIENCE, and COCHRANE LIBRARY were searched from 2009 January to February 2018. Heterogeneity was evaluated by Q test and I2. Source of heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression. Meta-analysis was executed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Totally, 35 studies were retrieved under the pre-set study eligibility criteria. Twenty-eight studies were included to evaluate the DTA of anti-PLA2R for differentiating iMN from non-iMN. They indicated a pooled sensitivity of 65% (63-67%), specificity of 97% (97-98%), positive likelihood ratio of 15.65 (9.95-24.62), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.37 (0.32-0.42) with a diagnostic OR (sDOR) of 50.41 (31.56 to 80.52) and AUC of 0.9393. No threshold effect was detected. The heterogeneity analysis for sDOR showed that I2 = 50.3% and Cochran-Q = 54.29, df = 27 (p = 0.0014). Heterogeneity was significant. Meta-regression revealed that sample size might be the potential source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that method type and ratio of patients with nephrotic-range proteinuria at baseline might be the source of heterogeneity. Sixteen studies reported the diagnostic value of glomerular PLA2R antigen for differentiating iMN from non-iMN. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, sDOR, and AUC were 79% (76-81%), 90% (88-92%), 8.17 (5.60-11.93), 0.25 (0.19-0.33), 39.37 (22.18-60.13), and 0.9278. Heterogeneity analysis showed that Cochran-Q = 35.36; df = 15 (p = 0.002), and I2 for sDOR was 57.6%. sPLA2R and gPLA2R demonstrated a good diagnostic accuracy in differentiating iMN and non-iMN.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Professor 2 9%
Lecturer 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 7 30%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2023.
All research outputs
#6,623,982
of 24,733,536 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,628
of 6,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,089
of 331,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#34
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,733,536 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.