Comparative Analysis of Classification Criteria in IgG4-Related Disease and Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy from a Retrospective Cohort in Clinical Practice.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Marta Lopez-Gomez, Patricia Moya-Alvarado, Hye Sang Park, Mar Concepción Martín, Sara Calleja, Helena Codes-Mendez, Berta Magallares, Iván Castellví, Antonio J Barros-Membrilla, Ana Laiz, César Diaz-Torné, Luis Sainz, Julia Bernárdez, Laura Martínez-Martinez, Hèctor Corominas
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Classification Criteria in IgG4-Related Disease and Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy from a Retrospective Cohort in Clinical Practice.","authors":"Marta Lopez-Gomez, Patricia Moya-Alvarado, Hye Sang Park, Mar Concepción Martín, Sara Calleja, Helena Codes-Mendez, Berta Magallares, Iván Castellví, Antonio J Barros-Membrilla, Ana Laiz, César Diaz-Torné, Luis Sainz, Julia Bernárdez, Laura Martínez-Martinez, Hèctor Corominas","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics14222583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of the Okazaki, Umehara, and American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for diagnosing immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective study was conducted in a single tertiary hospital, using expert clinical judgment as the gold standard. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Okazaki, Umehara, and ACR/EULAR criteria in a cohort of 41 patients with suspected IgG4-RD. We assessed sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for each criterion, and conducted a separate analysis based on four IgG4-RD subtypes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 patients were confirmed to have IgG4-RD and 11 were identified as mimickers. The Umehara criteria demonstrated the highest sensitivity (83.33%), followed by the ACR/EULAR 2019 (66.67%) and Okazaki (60.0%) criteria. All three criteria exhibited 100% specificity, with overall diagnostic accuracy ranging from 70% to 88%. The areas under the curve (AUC) were 0.917 (Umehara), 0.800 (Okazaki), and 0.833 (ACR/EULAR 2019), indicating significant diagnostic effectiveness (<i>p</i> < 0.000). Subtype analysis revealed that the Umehara and ACR/EULAR 2019 criteria were more effective in diagnosing pancreato-hepato-biliary involvement (subtype 1), while the Okazaki and ACR/EULAR 2019 criteria were more effective in diagnosing retroperitoneal fibrosis and/or aortitis (subtype 2).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study provides valuable insights into the diagnostic performance of the Okazaki, Umehara, and ACR/EULAR criteria for a cohort of patients with suspected IgG4-RD. The Umehara criterion demonstrated the highest sensitivity, suggesting its potential utility for screening purposes, while all three criteria showed consistent specificity.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"14 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14222583","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of the Okazaki, Umehara, and American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for diagnosing immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD).

Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted in a single tertiary hospital, using expert clinical judgment as the gold standard. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the Okazaki, Umehara, and ACR/EULAR criteria in a cohort of 41 patients with suspected IgG4-RD. We assessed sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for each criterion, and conducted a separate analysis based on four IgG4-RD subtypes.

Results: A total of 30 patients were confirmed to have IgG4-RD and 11 were identified as mimickers. The Umehara criteria demonstrated the highest sensitivity (83.33%), followed by the ACR/EULAR 2019 (66.67%) and Okazaki (60.0%) criteria. All three criteria exhibited 100% specificity, with overall diagnostic accuracy ranging from 70% to 88%. The areas under the curve (AUC) were 0.917 (Umehara), 0.800 (Okazaki), and 0.833 (ACR/EULAR 2019), indicating significant diagnostic effectiveness (p < 0.000). Subtype analysis revealed that the Umehara and ACR/EULAR 2019 criteria were more effective in diagnosing pancreato-hepato-biliary involvement (subtype 1), while the Okazaki and ACR/EULAR 2019 criteria were more effective in diagnosing retroperitoneal fibrosis and/or aortitis (subtype 2).

Conclusions: Our study provides valuable insights into the diagnostic performance of the Okazaki, Umehara, and ACR/EULAR criteria for a cohort of patients with suspected IgG4-RD. The Umehara criterion demonstrated the highest sensitivity, suggesting its potential utility for screening purposes, while all three criteria showed consistent specificity.

IgG4相关疾病分类标准比较分析及临床实践中回顾性队列诊断准确性评估
简介:我们对冈崎、梅原和美国风湿病学会/欧洲抗风湿病联盟(ACR/EULAR)诊断免疫球蛋白 G4 相关疾病(IgG4-RD)的分类标准进行了全面的比较分析:在一家三级甲等医院进行了一项回顾性研究,以专家临床判断作为金标准。我们在 41 例疑似 IgG4-RD 患者中比较了冈崎标准、梅原标准和 ACR/EULAR 标准的诊断准确性。我们评估了每种标准的敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值,并根据四种 IgG4-RD 亚型进行了单独分析:结果:共有 30 名患者被确诊为 IgG4-RD,11 名患者被确定为模仿者。梅原标准的灵敏度最高(83.33%),其次是 ACR/EULAR 2019 标准(66.67%)和冈崎标准(60.0%)。三项标准的特异性均为 100%,总体诊断准确率在 70% 至 88% 之间。曲线下面积(AUC)分别为 0.917(梅原)、0.800(冈崎)和 0.833(ACR/EULAR 2019),表明诊断效果显著(P < 0.000)。亚型分析显示,梅原和 ACR/EULAR 2019 标准对诊断胰肝胆受累(亚型 1)更有效,而冈崎和 ACR/EULAR 2019 标准对诊断腹膜后纤维化和/或主动脉炎(亚型 2)更有效:我们的研究为冈崎、梅原和 ACR/EULAR 标准在疑似 IgG4-RD 患者群中的诊断性能提供了有价值的见解。梅原标准显示出最高的灵敏度,表明其具有潜在的筛查用途,而所有三个标准都显示出一致的特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信