ArticleImmunologic research2015
A fully automated IIF system for the detection of antinuclear antibodies and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies.
Article in Immunologic research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Capacity of Several Machine Learning Tools to Assist Immunofluorescence-Based Detection of Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- The Role of Neutrophils in ANCA-Associated Vasculitis: The Pathogenic Role and Diagnostic Utility of Autoantibodies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Antinuclear antibodies detection: A comparative study between automated recognition and conventional visual interpretation.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
- Performance analysis of automated evaluation of antinuclear antibody indirect immunofluorescent tests in a routine setting.Auto- immunity highlights · 2018Article
- Cutaneous Manifestations of Dermatomyositis: a Comprehensive Review.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2017Review
- Automated evaluation of ANA under real-life conditions.RMD open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) is the main technique for the detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA). The fully automated IIF processor HELIOS(®) is the first IIF processor that is able to automatically prepare slides and perform automatic reading. The objective of the present study was to determine the diagnostic performance of this system for ANA and ANCA IIF interpretation, in comparison with visual IIF. ANA detection by visual IIF or HELIOS(®) was performed on 425 sera samples including: 218 consecutive samples submitted to a reference laboratory for routine ANA testing, 137 samples from healthy subjects and 70 ANA/ENA positive samples. For ANCA determination, 170 sera samples were collected: 40 samples for routine testing, 90 samples from healthy blood donors and 40 anti-PR3/anti-MPO positive subjects. Good correlation was found for the visual and automated ANA IIF approach regarding positive/negative discrimination of these samples (kappa = 0.633 for ANA positive samples and kappa = 0.657 for ANA negative samples, respectively). Positive/negative IIF ANCA discrimination by HELIOS(®) and visual IIF revealed a complete agreement of 100% in sera from healthy patients and PR3/MPO positive samples (kappa = 1.00). There was 95% agreement between the ANCA IIF performed by automated and visual IIF on the investigation of routine samples. Based on these results, HELIOS(®) demonstrated a high diagnostic performance for the automated ANA and ANCA IIF interpretation that was similar to a visual reading in all groups of samples.
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.