ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Comparison between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence for detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection of IgG Anti-Giardia duodenalis Antibodies in Sera by Indirect Immunofluorescence and Western Blotting Assays.Acta parasitologica · 2024Article
- Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation on treatment effect and immune function.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Article
- A Comparative Evaluation of Antigen-Specific Sandwich Immunoassay and Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay (IIF) in Detecting Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibodies: Are We Ready to Replace IIF with ELISA as the Primary Screening Method?Journal of laboratory physicians · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence methods for the detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in a routine clinical laboratory setting.
methodsA total of 227 samples were tested by indirect immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with antigen specificity for antiproteinase 3 and antimyeloperoxidase. The proportions of positive samples were compared by McNemar hypotheses and agreement was described by Cohen's Kappa coefficient.
resultsThe agreement of the tests was 96.5%, and the Kappa coefficient obtained was 0.70 (95%CI: 0.50-0.90; p<0.001). Considering indirect immunofluorescence as the gold standard, the sensitivity of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 0.62 and the specificity was 0.99, with diagnostic accuracy in 96% of cases. Some samples were negative in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and positive in indirect immunofluorescence. This situation occurred in all immunofluorescence patterns, but particularly in atypical patterns. Two samples with antiproteinase 3 positivity were considered negative in indirect immunofluorescence.
conclusionThe enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay had high specificity but lower sensitivity. The performance of indirect immunofluorescence increases diagnostic sensitivity, while the search for antiproteinase 3 by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay may also add diagnostic power.
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.