Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29623613›Full record

ArticleImmunologic research2018

Analytical variability in the determination of anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies: the strong need of a better definition of the old and new tests.

Maria Infantino, M Manfredi, M Merone, V Grossi, M Benucci, F Li Gobbi, F Bandinelli, A Damiani, P Soda

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Immunologic research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria InfantinoImmunology and Allergology Laboratory Unit, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Via Torregalli,3, 50143, Florence, Italy. maria2.infantino@uslcentro.toscana.it.
M ManfrediImmunology and Allergology Laboratory Unit, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Via Torregalli,3, 50143, Florence, Italy.
M MeroneComputer Systems & Bioinformatics Laboratory, Department of Engineering, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
V GrossiImmunology and Allergology Laboratory Unit, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Via Torregalli,3, 50143, Florence, Italy.
M BenucciRheumatology Unit, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Florence, Italy.
F Li GobbiRheumatology Unit, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Florence, Italy.
F BandinelliRheumatology Unit, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Florence, Italy.
A DamianiRheumatology Unit, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Florence, Italy.
P SodaComputer Systems & Bioinformatics Laboratory, Department of Engineering, University Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Nuovo Ospedale San Giovanni di Dio · ITUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anti-dsDNA antibodies are a heterogeneous group of antibodies, quite specific for SLE. Their variability is related to the assay used, the immunoglobulin class secondary antibody, and the dsDNA source. The standardization of measuring anti-dsDNA antibodies is still poor and different methods yield different results. Several novel technologies were developed during the last decades that represent viable alternatives to the traditional methods such as the chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) and multiplex flow immunoassay (MFI). Additionally, positive results for anti-dsDNA antibodies can be detected in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) treated with different biologics reducing its clinical specificity for SLE. Anti-dsDNA antibody levels were evaluated in 246 patient samples: 70 SLE and 176 disease control (including 96 IA during treatment with different biologics), using three enzyme immunoassays (indirect enzyme immunoassay, Bio-Rad Laboratories; chemiluminescent immunoassay, Inova Diagnostics; multiplex flow immunoassay, Bio-Rad Laboratories) and three Crithidia luciliae immunofluorescence tests (CLIFT) (Euroimmun AG, Bio-Rad Laboratories, INOVA Diagnostics). Diagnostic performances were assessed both including and excluding the IA patients. Agreements, measured by the Cohen's Kappa between all methods, ranged from moderate to substantial (0.47-0.68). The clinical sensitivities for the anti-dsDNA antibody tests varied from 5.7% by CLIFT A up to 33.3% provided by EIA while the clinical specificities varied from 89.8% by MFI to 98.9% provided by CLIFT B and C. Newer technologies, such as MFI and CIA, showed great potential as a diagnostic application. Significant variations among anti-dsDNA antibody assays were observed confirming the lack of standardization.

Indexed as

Antibodies, AntinuclearArthritis, RheumatoidCrithidiaDNAFluorescent Antibody TechniqueHumansImmunoassayLuminescent MeasurementsLupus Erythematosus, SystemicReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, AntinuclearDNAAnti-dsDNA antibodiesIntermethods variabilitySLE classification criteriaStandardization

Identifiers

PMID29623613
OpenAlexW2795412599

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.