Diagnostic value of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody for rheumatoid arthritis in a Chinese population: a meta-analysis

Diagnostic performance of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide and rheumatoid factor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

AIM

To compare the diagnostic performance of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP) in the diagnosis of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Taiwan.

METHODS

Serum concentrations of RF and anti-CCP were measured in 246 cases, including 39 patients with RA and 207 patients with other rheumatic diseases (non-RA). The age, sex, clinical presentation, RF, anti-CCP results and the final diagnoses were recorded and analyzed. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) were calculated.

RESULTS

Among all 246 patients, 39 (15.9%) were diagnosed with RA and 207 (84.1%) were diagnosed with other rheumatic diseases (non-RA). In the diagnosis of RA, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+ and LR- of the RF test were 67%, 79%, 37%, 93%, 3.12, and 0.42, respectively. The corresponding data for the anti-CCP test were 79%, 98%, 86%, 96%, 32.91 and 0.21, respectively. The presence of either anti-CCP or RF increased the sensitivity to 85%, and when they both were present, the specificity increased to 98%. Among the 39 RA patients, 26 (66.7%) tested positive for RF, and 31 (79.5%) tested positive for anti-CCP. RF was positive in two of eight anti-CCP-negative patients with RA, and anti-CCP was positive in seven of 13 RF-negative patients with RA.

CONCLUSIONS

The RF and anti-CCP tests are complementary, and the co-detection of these antibodies can increase the detection rate and provide important clinical value in the diagnosis of RA. Both anti-CCP and RF positivity are useful for the diagnosis of RA, and use of both tests together improves the diagnostic sensitivity.

Should we search Chinese biomedical databases when performing systematic reviews?

BACKGROUND

Chinese biomedical databases contain a large number of publications available to systematic reviewers, but it is unclear whether they are used for synthesizing the available evidence.

METHODS

We report a case of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide for diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis. In one of these, the authors did not search Chinese databases; in the other, they did. We additionally assessed the extent to which Cochrane reviewers have searched Chinese databases in a systematic overview of the Cochrane Library (inception to 2014).

RESULTS

The two diagnostic reviews included a total of 269 unique studies, but only 4 studies were included in both reviews. The first review included five studies published in the Chinese language (out of 151) while the second included 114 (out of 118). The summary accuracy estimates from the two reviews were comparable. Only 243 of the published 8,680 Cochrane reviews (less than 3%) searched one or more of the five major Chinese databases. These Chinese databases index about 2,500 journals, of which less than 6% are also indexed in MEDLINE. All 243 Cochrane reviews evaluated an intervention, 179 (74%) had at least one author with a Chinese affiliation; 118 (49%) addressed a topic in complementary or alternative medicine.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Although searching Chinese databases may lead to the identification of a large amount of additional clinical evidence, Cochrane reviewers have rarely included them in their search strategy. We encourage future initiatives to evaluate more systematically the relevance of searching Chinese databases, as well as collaborative efforts to allow better incorporation of Chinese resources in systematic reviews.