ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2016
Comparison of Screening Dilution and Automated Reading for Antinuclear Antibody Detection on HEP2 Cells in the Monitoring of Connective Tissue Diseases.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Supervised Machine Learning to Recognize Competent Level and Mixed Antinuclear Antibody Patterns Based on ICAP International Consensus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Standardization and Quality Assessment Under the Perspective of Automated Computer-Assisted HEp-2 Immunofluorescence Assay Systems.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Autoantibodies Associated With Connective Tissue Diseases: What Meaning for Clinicians?Frontiers in immunology · 2018Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndirect immunofluorescence plays a major role in the detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) and follow-up of their titers in the context of connective tissue diseases. Given the numerous unfavorable features of the conventional manual reading of HEP2 slides (need of time and expert morphologists for the reading, lack of standardization, subjectivity of the interpretation), the biomedical industry has developed automated techniques of slide preparation and microscope reading.
methodsWe collected 49 sera beforehand analyzed by the conventional reading of slides. They were prepared again by QUANTA-Lyser(®) and reanalyzed in four different conditions: two dilutions of screening (1/40 and 1/80), two different systems of analysis, NOVA View(®) automated reading (INOVA Diagnostics), then confirmation by the operator, and conventional manual reading by two different qualified operators. The analysis was realized in blind of the first interpretation and clinical diagnosis. The sera were classified in four groups, on the basis of the results of the first analysis: negative sera (titer < 1/160; 11 patients), low positives (titer at 1/160; 18 patients), moderated positives (titers between 1/320 and 1/640; 10 patients), and strong positives (titers between 1/1,280 and 1/2,560; 10 patients).
resultsAmong the 49 patients, 13 presented a connective tissue disease including 4 systemic scleroderma (SS), 3 rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 2 Goujerot-Sjogren (GS), 2 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), 1 polymyositis (PM), 1 Raynaud's syndrome (RS), and 1 CREST syndrome. One patient presented both an SLE and an SS. Regarding the screening dilution, the 1/40 dilution is less specific than the 1/80 dilution for both the systems of analysis (5.6% vs. 16.7% for the manual reading, and 27.8% vs. 50% for the automated reading). It also generates statistically more false positives (P = 0.037 for the conventional analysis and P = 0.003 for the automated system). The automated NOVA View(®) reading of slides allows a gain in specificity for both dilutions, and also statistically less false positives (P = 0.002 at the 1/40 and P = 0.0006 at the 1/80), and detriment of the sensitivity at the highest dilution (84.6% vs. 92.3% with manual reading). Thus, according to our analysis of 49 sera, the automated NOVA View(®) system of reading of slides at the dilution 1/80 seems to be a successful condition for the detection of ANAs on HEP2 cells, close to the significance (P = 0.067).
conclusionThe automated NOVA View(®) reading of slides allows saving time, and an improvement in the standardization. Nevertheless, it requires a confirmation by a qualified operator, to interpret mixed patterns in particular.
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.