BACKGROUND: Detection of M-type phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R) can be used in serologic diagnosis of idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN), but there are limited data about the sensitivity and specificity of its diagnostic values. METHODS AND RESULTS: Meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies assessing the values of PLA2R in diagnosis of IMN. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and congress abstracts were searched for studies reporting the value of PLA2R to predict IMN. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the guidelines of the updated Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The results are summarized as sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (OR). Data from 10 studies involving 1,550 participants were analyzed. Across all settings, the diagnostic OR for serum anti-PLA2R level to predict IMN at different stages was 247.41, with sensitivity of 0.69 and specificity of 0.99. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of serum anti-PLA2R level for diagnosis of IMN in the active stage were 74.0 and 95.0%, respectively, with diagnostic OR of 54.22. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of biopsy anti-PLA2R for diagnosis of IMN at different stages was 73.0 and 83.0%, respectively, with diagnostic OR of 13.75. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that serum anti-PLA2R level is of diagnostic value for IMN in the active stage. Future large-cohort prospective studies are required to reveal the diagnostic value of circulating anti-PLA2R antibodies versus PLA2R antigens in kidney biopsy for IMN at different stages.
BACKGROUND: Detection of M-type phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R) can be used in serologic diagnosis of idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN), but there are limited data about the sensitivity and specificity of its diagnostic values. METHODS AND RESULTS: Meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies assessing the values of PLA2R in diagnosis of IMN. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and congress abstracts were searched for studies reporting the value of PLA2R to predict IMN. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the guidelines of the updated Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The results are summarized as sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (OR). Data from 10 studies involving 1,550 participants were analyzed. Across all settings, the diagnostic OR for serum anti-PLA2R level to predict IMN at different stages was 247.41, with sensitivity of 0.69 and specificity of 0.99. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of serum anti-PLA2R level for diagnosis of IMN in the active stage were 74.0 and 95.0%, respectively, with diagnostic OR of 54.22. The estimated sensitivity and specificity of biopsy anti-PLA2R for diagnosis of IMN at different stages was 73.0 and 83.0%, respectively, with diagnostic OR of 13.75. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that serum anti-PLA2R level is of diagnostic value for IMN in the active stage. Future large-cohort prospective studies are required to reveal the diagnostic value of circulating anti-PLA2R antibodies versus PLA2R antigens in kidney biopsy for IMN at different stages.
Authors: Marco Prunotto; Maria Luisa Carnevali; Giovanni Candiano; Corrado Murtas; Maurizio Bruschi; Emilia Corradini; Antonella Trivelli; Alberto Magnasco; Andrea Petretto; Laura Santucci; Silvia Mattei; Rita Gatti; Francesco Scolari; Peter Kador; Landino Allegri; Gian Marco Ghiggeri Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Barbora Svobodova; Eva Honsova; Pierre Ronco; Vladimir Tesar; Hanna Debiec Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Laurence H Beck; Ramon G B Bonegio; Gérard Lambeau; David M Beck; David W Powell; Timothy D Cummins; Jon B Klein; David J Salant Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-07-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Durga Kanigicherla; Jennet Gummadova; Edward A McKenzie; Stephen A Roberts; Shelley Harris; Milind Nikam; Kay Poulton; Lorna McWilliam; Colin D Short; Michael Venning; Paul E Brenchley Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: A Radice; F Pieruzzi; B Trezzi; G Ghiggeri; P Napodano; M D'Amico; T Stellato; R Brugnano; F Ravera; D Rolla; G Pesce; M E Giovenzana; F Londrino; V Cantaluppi; F Pregnolato; A Volpi; G Rombolà; G Moroni; G Ortisi; Renato A Sinico Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2017-10-28 Impact factor: 3.902
Authors: Dawn J Caster; Liliane Hobeika; Jon B Klein; David W Powell; Kenneth R McLeish Journal: Proteomics Clin Appl Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 3.494