ArticleRMD open2017
Automated evaluation of ANA under real-life conditions.
Article in RMD open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence applications for immunology laboratory: image analysis and classification study of IIF photos.Immunologic research · 2024Article
- Standardization and Quality Assessment Under the Perspective of Automated Computer-Assisted HEp-2 Immunofluorescence Assay Systems.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Evaluation of a Fully Automated Antinuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay in Routine Use.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Article
- Performance analysis of automated evaluation of antinuclear antibody indirect immunofluorescent tests in a routine setting.Auto- immunity highlights · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVisual evaluation of indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) on human epithelial-2 cells is the routine method for screening for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in connective tissue diseases. Since visual IIF is time-consuming and subjective, automated IIF processors have been developed to offer standardised, valid and cost-efficient IIF assays.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic reliability of 2 widely used IIF processors (Aklides, Medipan GmbH and Helios, Aesku Diagnostics) under real-life laboratory working conditions.
methodsANA were determined in samples from patients with suspected autoimmune rheumatic disease (n=1008) using both automated IIF processors and compared with the results obtained by visual interpretation. The performance of IIF processors to discriminate positive from negative samples, pattern recognition and end point titre prediction were evaluated.
resultsThe IIF processors showed moderate agreement with visual interpretation in discriminating positive from negative ANA samples (κ values: Aklides 0.494; Helios 0.415). The sensitivity/specificity was 89%/59% for Aklides and 87%/54% for Helios. However, both processors correctly identified 99% of definitely positive samples (titre ≥1:320). Aklides correctly identified 43% of fluorescence patterns and its light intensity values showed good correlation (Spearman's ρ=0.680) with visually obtained titres.
conclusionsAutomated IIF determination under real-life laboratory working conditions remains a challenge. Owing to their high sensitivity at clinically relevant ANA titres, automated IIF processors can already support but not totally replace visual IIF.
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.