ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2012
Is identification of anti-SSA and/or -SSB antibodies necessary in serum samples referred for antinuclear antibodies testing?
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conjunctival MicroRNA Expression Signature in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome Dry Eye: A NanoString-Based Bioinformatic Analysis.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Clinical usefulness of anti-muscarinic type 3 receptor autoantibodies in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome.Clinical and experimental rheumatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnti-SSA and -SSB antibodies are clinically important antinuclear antibodies in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases.
methodsWe evaluated fluorescence characteristics and clinical significance of anti-SSA and -SSB and explored whether identification of these antibodies was necessary in clinical application.
resultsOf 4,978 consecutive samples, 259 showed anti-SSA or -SSB reactivity, clinical information of which were analyzed. Compared with SSA+SSB- and SSA-SSB+ group, SSA+SSB+ group showed a lower proportion (0.5%) of negative specimens detected with antinuclear antibody assay and a higher proportion (53.5%) of specimens with high titer. Anti-SSA- and/or -SSB-positive samples presented various patterns. However, 64.6% of SSA+SSB+ samples presented speckled pattern, significantly higher than SSA+SSB- and SSA-SSB+ samples. A total of 475 specimens containing anti-SSA or -SSB were obtained from 302 individuals. Clinical information was obtained for 259 of them, which were further analyzed. The prevalence of Sjögren syndrome (SS) was significantly higher, and that of other diseases was lower in SSA+SSB+ than in SSA+SSB- group. Of the 259 individuals, 71 anti-SSA- and/or -SSB-positive patients had blood drawn on 2 or more occasions over the 2-year study period. The number of tests per patient was 2.7 ± 1.1. In 7 of the 71 patients, anti-SSA was observed in some but not all samples, so was anti-SSB in 6.
conclusionIn conclusion, the identification of anti-SSA and -SSB antibodies is necessary, when corresponding diseases are suspected. The specificity of anti-SSA for the diagnosis of SS could be improved, when combined with anti-SSB. SS patients need not be identified frequently for anti-SSA and -SSB because of their stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.