Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24275965›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2014

Standardization of autoantibody testing: a paradigm for serology in rheumatic diseases.

Pier Luigi Meroni, Martina Biggioggero, Silvia S Pierangeli, Joanna Sheldon, Ingrid Zegers, Maria Orietta Borghi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Pier Luigi MeroniDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Division of Rheumatology, Istituto G. Pini, University of Milan, Piazza C. Ferrari 1, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Martina BiggioggeroDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Division of Rheumatology, Istituto G. Pini, University of Milan, Piazza C. Ferrari 1, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Silvia S PierangeliDivisions of Rheumatology and Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555-0883, USA.
Joanna SheldonProtein Reference Unit, St George's Hospital, Blackshaw Road, London SW17 0NH, UK.
Ingrid ZegersEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM), Retieseweg 111, B-2440 Geel, Belgium.
Maria Orietta BorghiIstituto Auxologico Italiano, Experimental Laboratory of Immune-Rheumatology, Via G. Zucchi 18, 20095 Cusano Milanino, Milan, Italy.
University of Milan · ITEuropean Commission · BEIRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano · ITSt George's Hospital · GBThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autoantibody measurement is an excellent tool to confirm the diagnosis of rheumatic autoimmune diseases. Hence, reliability and harmonization of autoantibody testing are essential, but these issues are still a matter of debate. Intrinsic variability in analytes and reagents as well as heterogeneity of the techniques are the main reasons for discrepancies in inter-laboratory variations and reporting of test results. This lack of reliability might be responsible for wrong or missed diagnoses, as well as additional costs due to assay repetition, unnecessary use of confirmatory tests and/or consequent diagnostic investigations. To overcome such issues, the standardization of autoantibody testing requires efforts on all aspects of the assays, including the definition of the analyte, the pre-analytical stages, the calibration method and the reporting of results. As part of such efforts, the availability of suitable reference materials for calibration and quality control would enable the development of a reliable reference system. Strong-positive sera from patients have been used as reference materials in most of the autoantibody assays for rheumatic diseases; however, antigen-affinity-purified immunoglobulin fractions or in some cases reliable monoclonal antibody preparations offer more adequate tools for standardization. Systematic assessments of reference materials are currently underway, and preliminary results appear to be encouraging.

Indexed as

AutoantibodiesCalibrationHumansInternational CooperationReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsRheumatic DiseasesSerologic TestsAutoantibodies

Identifiers

PMID24275965
OpenAlexW2156593826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.