ArticleClinical and experimental immunology2015
How should a district general hospital immunology service screen for anti-nuclear antibodies? An 'in-the-field' audit.
Article in Clinical and experimental immunology, 2015. 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.
- Relationships among Antibodies against Extractable Nuclear Antigens, Antinuclear Antibodies, and Autoimmune Diseases in a Brazilian Public Hospital.Autoimmune diseases · 2018Article
- Applying Choosing Wisely: Antinuclear Antibody (ANA) and Sub-Serology Testing in a Safety Net Hospital System.The open rheumatology journal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) testing assists in the diagnosis of several immune-mediated disorders. The gold standard method for detection of these antibodies is by indirect immunofluorescence testing on human epidermoid laryngeal carcinoma (HEp-2) cells. However, many laboratories test for these antibodies using solid-phase assays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), which allows for higher throughput testing at reduced cost. In this study, we have audited the performance of a previously established ELISA assay to screen for ANA, making comparison with the gold standard HEp-2 immunofluorescence test. A prospective and unselected sample of 89 consecutive ANA test requests by consultant rheumatologists were evaluated in parallel over a period of 10 months using both tests. ELISA and HEp-2 screening assays yielded 40 (45%) and 72 (81%) positive test results, respectively, demonstrating lack of concordance between test methods. Using standard and clinical samples, it was demonstrated that the ELISA method did not detect several ANA with nucleolar, homogeneous and speckled immunofluorescence patterns. None of these ELISA(NEG) HEp-2(POS) ANA were reactive with a panel of six extractable nuclear antigens or with double-stranded DNA. Nonetheless, 13 of these samples (15%) originated from patients with recognized ANA-associated disease (n = 7) or Raynaud's phenomenon (n = 6). We conclude that ELISA screening may fail to detect clinically relevant ANA that lack defined specificity for antigen.
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.