Primary study · included by 1 review

Evaluation of Site- and Autoantigen-Specific Characteristics of Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid.

Van Beek 2022 · van Beek Nina, Kridin Khalaf, Bühler Elena, et al. · JAMA dermatology · 2022

Included by

Diagnostic Agreement in Subepidermal Blistering Diseases: Is ELISA Test Reliable as Direct Immunofluorescence? A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Non-Cochrane · DTA · 2026 · cited as Van Beek 2022 · Table 2; References

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Diagnostic agreement between ELISA and DIF (risk difference in test positivity) ELISA (BP180, BP230 and/or Lam332) in mucous membrane pemphigoid (index test) vs Direct immunofluorescence (DIF, reference standard) · At first diagnosis, before immunosuppressive therapy	RD 0.55 [0.43, 0.67]	7 studies · 489 participants	GRADE not reported
Diagnostic agreement between ELISA and DIF (risk difference in test positivity) ELISA for Lam332 autoantibodies (index test) vs Direct immunofluorescence (DIF, reference standard) · At first diagnosis, before immunosuppressive therapy	RD 0.82 [0.7, 0.94]	4 studies · 365 participants	GRADE not reported
Diagnostic agreement between ELISA and DIF (risk difference in test positivity) ELISA for BP180 autoantibodies (index test) vs Direct immunofluorescence (DIF, reference standard) · At first diagnosis, before immunosuppressive therapy	RD 0.26 [0.19, 0.33]	35 studies · 2776 participants	GRADE not reported
Diagnostic agreement between ELISA and DIF (risk difference in test positivity) ELISA for BP230 autoantibodies (index test) vs Direct immunofluorescence (DIF, reference standard) · At first diagnosis, before immunosuppressive therapy	RD 0.59 [0.47, 0.71]	27 studies · 2097 participants	GRADE not reported

1 including review in total.