Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26034836›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2015

The anti-DNA antibody: origin and impact, dogmas and controversies.

Ole P Rekvig

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Do human B-1 lymphocytes truly exist?Frontiers in immunology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Neoself Antigens Presented on MHC Class II Molecules in Autoimmune Diseases.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. An Emerging Role for Anti-DNA Antibodies in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  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

1 author.

Ole P RekvigRNA and Molecular Pathology Research Group, Department of Medical Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The inclusion of 'the anti-DNA antibody' by the ACR and the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) as a criterion for systemic lupus erythematosus does not convey the diverse origins of these antibodies, whether their production is transient or persistent (which is heavily influenced by the nature of the inducing antigens), the specificities exerted by these antibodies or their clinical impact-or lack thereof. A substantial amount of data not considered in clinical medicine could be added from basic immunology evidence, which could change the paradigms linked to what 'the anti-DNA antibody' is, in a pathogenic, classification or diagnostic context.

Indexed as

AnimalsAutoantibodiesDNAHumansLupus Erythematosus, SystemicAutoantibodiesDNA

Identifiers

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.