Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28541299›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2017

Antinuclear antibody testing - misunderstood or misbegotten?

David S Pisetsky

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 185 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Autoantibody Ordering Patterns Across a Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Audit.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

David S PisetskyMedical Research Service, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, Box 151G, 508 Fulton Street, Durham, North Carolina 27705, USA; and at the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC 3544, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Duke Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are a diverse group of autoantibodies that recognize nuclear macromolecules and their complexes. ANAs represent key biomarkers in the evaluation of rheumatic diseases, most prominently systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and ANA testing is commonly performed in the clinical setting. In addition, ANA testing is now used to assess eligibility for participation in clinical trials of new therapeutic agents for SLE. ANAs can be assayed by various techniques, with the fluorescent ANA assay often viewed as the gold standard. Whereas a positive ANA test represents a classification criterion for SLE, up to 20-30% of the healthy population, depending on the assay used, is positive for an ANA, complicating the use of this test for diagnosis or the detection of preclinical autoimmunity. Furthermore, ANAs might be expressed in SLE less commonly than often thought. This Perspectives article discusses important questions about the use of ANA testing in both the clinical and research settings.

Indexed as

Antibodies, AntinuclearBiomarkersHumansImmunologic TestsLupus Erythematosus, SystemicAntibodies, AntinuclearBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID28541299
OpenAlexW2619527794

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.