ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2021
The performance of the chemiluminescent immunoassay for measuring serum myeloperoxidase and proteinase 3 antibodies.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serum-compatible aptamer-regulated RCA-CRISPR/Cas12a assay for fluorescence and lateral flow detection of myeloperoxidase.Mikrochimica acta · 2026Article
- The performance of the chemiluminescent immunoassay for measuring serum myeloperoxidase and proteinase 3 antibodies.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
Abstract
backgroundEnzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has traditionally been used to detect myeloperoxidase (MPO) and proteinase 3 (PR3) antibodies, although it is time-consuming and physically demanding. As a novel and highly effective immunoassay, we compared chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) with ELISA to verify the application value of CIA in MPO and PR3 antibodies detection.
methodsBy ELISA and CIA, serum levels of anti-MPO and anti-PR3 antibodies were measured in 63 anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) patients (AAV group), including 47 microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) patients and 16 granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) patients, in addition, 68 patients in interference control group (IC group), 19 healthy subjects in healthy control group (HC group). We compared MPO and PR3 antibodies levels and positive rates measured by these two methods among groups. Relationship and coincidence rate between ELISA and CIA were investigated. Diagnostic values for clinical outcomes for MPO and PR3 antibodies were assessed by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve.
resultsIn AAV patients, when detecting anti-MPO (r = .90) and anti-PR3 (r = .81), CIA was highly correlated with ELISA, companying with highly total (88.89%, 92.06%, respectively) and positive coincidence rates (84.78%, 77.27%, respectively). In HC group, anti-PR3 positive rate detected by both immunoassay were 0, anti-MPO almost were 0, which without statistically significant difference (P = .32). In IC group, the total (76.47%, 58.82, respectively) and positive coincidence rates (48.38%, 30.00%, respectively) of anti-MPO and anti-PR3 were the lowest, but the negative coincidence rates reached 100%. By CIA, similar to ELISA, the levels of anti-MPO were significantly higher both in AAV patients (56.00; [4.40-235.30]) and MPA patients (98.00; [27.90-324.70]) compared with either IC group (3.20; [3.20-18.55) (P < .0001) or HC group (3.20; [3.20-3.20]) (P < .0001), yielded an area under curve (AUC) of 0.76 for AAV and 0.89 for MPA, the concentration of anti-PR3 in GPA group (66.65; [24.43-150.00]) was significantly higher than that in IC group (2.3; [2.3-10.95]) (P < .0001) and HC group (2.3; [2.3-2.3]) (P < .0001), with an AUC of 0.92.
conclusionSimilar to ELISA, CIA was competent to detect MPO and PR3 antibodies in AAV patients and healthy population, thus distinguish AAV patients from IC group and HC group and effectively diagnose MPA and GPA.
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.