ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2017
Performance of an Automated Fluorescence Antinuclear Antibody Image Analyzer.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of artificial intelligence applications and commercial system performances using selected ANA IIF images.Immunologic research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Accuracy of Estimated Endpoint Titer of NOVA View in Indirect Immunofluorescent Antinuclear Antibody Testing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Characterisation of Primary Human Hippocampal Astrocyte Cell Culture Following Exposure to Hypoxia.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2023Article
- Clinical Performance of Two Automated Immunoassays, EliA CTD Screen and QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus, for Antinuclear Antibody Screening.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Effects of Automation on Sustainability of Immunohistochemistry Laboratory.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a Fully Automated Antinuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay in Routine Use.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Article
- Antinuclear antibodies detection: A comparative study between automated recognition and conventional visual interpretation.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
- Automated Processing and Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Testing.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Article
- Recent Approaches To Optimize Laboratory Assessment of Antinuclear Antibodies.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe gold standard for antinuclear antibody (ANA) screening is the indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) assay with human epithelial cells (HEp-2). However, a number of substantial disadvantages of manual IIF assays have highlighted the need for the automation and standardization of fluorescent ANA (FANA) testing. We evaluated the performance of EUROPattern Suite (Euroimmun AG, Germany), an automated FANA image analyzer, with regard to ANA detection and pattern recognition compared with conventional manual interpretation using the fluorescence microscopic IIF assay.
methodsA total of 104 samples including 70 ANA-positive sera and 34 ANA-negative sera collected from September to October 2015 were included. The sensitivity, specificity, and pattern recognition function were evaluated to determine the performance of EUROPattern Suite compared with the manual IIF assay results.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of EUROPattern Suite for ANA detection were 94.3% and 94.1%, respectively. The concordance rate between the two methods was 94.2%. For pattern recognition, 45.7% of the samples were assigned identical ANA patterns including simple and mixed. When major pattern matching was considered, 83.7% (41/49) and 95.2% (20/21) of the samples with simple and mixed patterns, respectively, showed concordant results between the two methods.
conclusionsEUROPattern Suite, an automated FANA image analyzer, provides a viable option for distinguishing between positive and negative results, although the ability to assign specific patterns is insufficient to replace manual microscopic interpretation. This automated system may increase efficiency in laboratories, in which a large number of samples need to be processed.
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.