ArticleImmunologic research2015
Clinical performance evaluation of a novel, automated chemiluminescent immunoassay, QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis of Systemic Rheumatic Disease Using the Connective Tissue Disease Screen.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparison of Indirect Immunofluorescence and Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antinuclear Antibodies.Cureus · 2022Article
- False positive anti-Topoisomerase I (Scl-70) antibody results in clinical practice: A case series from a scleroderma referral center.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2022Article
- Analytical and clinical performance of different platforms simultaneously detecting 15 antinuclear antibodies.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- The Effect of Anti-Scl-70 Antibody Determination Method on Its Predictive Significance for Interstitial Lung Disease Progression in Systemic Sclerosis.ACR open rheumatology · 2022Article
- The Past, Present, and Future in Antinuclear Antibodies (ANA).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Clinical Performance of Two Automated Immunoassays, EliA CTD Screen and QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus, for Antinuclear Antibody Screening.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Understanding and interpreting antinuclear antibody tests in systemic rheumatic diseases.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2020Review
- Absence of Anti-Glomerular Basement Membrane Antibodies in 200 Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus With or Without Lupus Nephritis: Results of the GOODLUPUS Study.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Article
- Chemiluminescent immunoassay technology: what does it change in autoantibody detection?Auto- immunity highlights · 2017Article
- Detection of autoantibodies using chemiluminescence technologies.Immunopharmacology and immunotoxicology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The QUANTA Flash(®) CTD Screen Plus is a chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) for the detection of the major antinuclear antibodies (ANA) on the BIO-FLASH(®) platform. NOVA View(®) is an automated fluorescence microscope that acquires digital images of indirect immunofluorescent assay (IFA) slides. Our goal was to evaluate the clinical performance of the two automated systems and compare their performance to that of traditional IFA. Sera from patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD, n = 178), along with disease and healthy controls (n = 204), were tested with the CTD CIA and with NOVA Lite(®) HEp-2 ANA, using both the manual method of reading the IFA slides and the NOVA View instrument. The CTD CIA showed 78.1% sensitivity for SARD, coupled with 94.1% specificity. Manual IFA and NOVA View showed somewhat higher sensitivity (81.5 and 84.8% in SARD, respectively), but significantly lower specificity (79.4 and 64.7%, respectively). Both automated systems displayed somewhat different performance, due to the different principals of ANA detection: IFA with NOVA View digital image interpretation had higher sensitivity, while the CTD CIA showed higher specificity. With the added benefits of full automation, the new CTD CIA is an attractive alternative to traditional ANA screening.
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.