ArticleJournal of immunology research2014
Anti-nuclear antibodies in daily clinical practice: prevalence in primary, secondary, and tertiary care.
Article in Journal of immunology research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- An international multicenter retrospective analysis of repeated anti-ENA testing in ANA-associated rheumatic diseases, a data-driven proposal to increase testing efficacy.Journal of translational autoimmunity · 2025Article
- Article
- ANA-specific antibodies, ANA patterns, anti-ds-DNA results, and clinical diagnosis: a laboratory and clinical audit.Immunologic research · 2023Article
- Serum antinuclear autoantibodies are associated with measures of oxidative stress and lifestyle factors: analysis of LIPIDOGRAM2015 and LIPIDOGEN2015 studies.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2023Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on autoimmune diagnostics in Europe: A lesson to be learned.Autoimmunity reviews · 2021Review
- Assessment of antinuclear antibodies (ANA): National recommendations on behalf of the Croatian society of medical biochemistry and laboratory medicine.Biochemia medica · 2021Review
- Quality and best practice in medical laboratories: specific requests for autoimmunity testing.Auto- immunity highlights · 2020Article
- Clinical relevance of HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescent patterns: the International Consensus on ANA patterns (ICAP) perspective.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2019Article
- Performance analysis of automated evaluation of antinuclear antibody indirect immunofluorescent tests in a routine setting.Auto- immunity highlights · 2018Article
- From autoinflammation to autoimmunity: old and recent findings.Clinical rheumatology · 2018Review
- Vitamin D deficiency as a risk factor for the development of autoantibodies in patients with ASIA and silicone breast implants: a cohort study and review of the literature.Clinical rheumatology · 2017Review
- Two hundreds cases of ASIA syndrome following silicone implants: a comparative study of 30 years and a review of current literature.Immunologic research · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For the diagnosis of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD), patients are screened for anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA). ANA, as assessed by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF), have a poor specificity. This hampers interpretation of positive results in clinical settings with low pretest probability of SARD. We hypothesized that the utility of positive ANA IIF results increases from primary to tertiary care. We retrospectively determined ANA, anti-ENA, and anti-dsDNA antibody prevalence in patient cohorts from primary (n = 1453), secondary (n = 1621), and tertiary (n = 1168) care settings. Results reveal that from primary care to tertiary care, ANA prevalence increases (6.2, 10.8, and 16.0%, resp.). Moreover, in primary care low titres (70% versus 51% and 52% in secondary and tertiary care, resp.) are more frequent and anti-ENA/dsDNA reactivities are less prevalent (21% versus 39% in secondary care). Typically, in tertiary care the prevalence of anti-ENA/dsDNA reactivities (21%) is lower than expected. From this descriptive study we conclude that positive ANA IIF results are more prone to false interpretation in clinical settings with low pretest probabilities for SARD, as in primary care. Whether alternative approaches, that is, immunoadsorption of anti-DFS70 antibodies or implementation of anti-ENA screen assays, perform better, needs to be determined.
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.