ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
Antinuclear antibodies detection: A comparative study between automated recognition and conventional visual interpretation.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. 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.
- Human VH4-34 antibodies derived from B1 cells are more frequently autoreactive than VH4-34 antibodies derived from memory cells.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Antinuclear antibodies detection: A comparative study between automated recognition and conventional visual interpretation.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
- Benefits of VISION Max automated cross-matching in comparison with manual cross-matching: A multidimensional analysis.PloS one · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) for the detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) was firstly described in 1958 and is still considered the reference method for ANA screening. Currently, an automated processing and recognition system for standardized and efficient ANA interpretation by human epithelial (HEp-2) cell-based immunofluorescence (IIF; EUROPattern Suite, Euroimmun) is available in China.
methodsIn this study, the performance of this novel system for positive/negative classification, pattern recognition (including homogenous, speckled, nucleolar, nuclear dots, cytoplasmic, and centromeres patterns) and titers evaluation was evaluated by comparing to visual interpretation.
resultsReferring to the total of 3681 collected samples, there was an agreement of 98.7% (κ = 0.973) between the visual and automated examination regarding positive/negative discrimination. In sera with single pattern, correct pattern recognition was observed in 94.6% of the samples. The efficiency of automated recognition for single pattern varied for the different patterns. The automatically determined patterns were correct and complete in 1071 of 1620 cases and correct and meaningful but not complete ("main pattern") in another 405 cases, enabling main pattern recognition in 91.1% of all cases. Referring to the titers evaluation, the results within the next titer were considered to be consistent. In 1603 positive sera both by visual and automated evaluation, titers of 1514 sample were consistent, accounting for 94.4%.
conclusionAttributed to the performance characteristics, EUROPattern system is suitable for clinical use as its high degree of automation and result reliability, and may help clinical laboratories to standardize of IIF evaluation.
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.