ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2021
Clinical implications of ANCA positivity in a hospital setting: a tertiary center experience.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges in the diagnosis, classification and prognosis of ANCA-associated vasculitis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2025Review
- ANCA testing: where are we now?Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ANCA testing plays an established critical role in the diagnosis of ANCA Associated vasculitis (AAV). The spectrum of diseases associated with positive ANCA has recently broadened, thus calling into question the diagnostic implications of ANCA positivity in a hospital setting. We retrospectively studied all adult patients who had a positive ANCA test (by Indirect Immunofluorescence (IIF), ELISA or both) performed over the span of 19 years. Subjects were then divided into discordant (positive on one assay) and concordant ANCA (positive on both assays) groups based on their ANCA positivity status. The two groups were then compared with regards to their demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics, the indication for ANCA testing in both groups and their final diagnoses. Of the 9189 ANCA tests ordered during the 19-year span of the study, 389 (4.2%) were positive. Two hundred and forty subjects met the exclusion criteria (patients aged less than 18 years or the lack of clinical and laboratory data in the medical file) thus resulting in a final cohort of 149 subjects. Of them, 122 subjects had discrepant ANCA results and 27 had matching ANCA results. Most cases in the discrepancy group were IIF positive and ELISA negative (86.8%). The diagnosis of AAV was highly unlikely in cases with discrepant IIF and ELISA serologies compared to cases with matching IIF and ELISA serologies (4.1% versus 44.4%, p value < 0.001). The diagnosis of AAV in unlikely in subjects with discrepancies between IIF and ELISA, particularly with only positive 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.