Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33154583›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2020

Understanding and interpreting antinuclear antibody tests in systemic rheumatic diseases.

Xavier Bossuyt, Ellen De Langhe, Maria Orietta Borghi, Pier Luigi Meroni

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 160 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. HE4: a potential diagnostic biomarker in autoimmune diseases.Central-European journal of immunology · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Review

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xavier BossuytDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, KU Leuven and Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. xavier.bossuyt@uzleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6856-8485
Ellen De LangheDepartment of Rheumatology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Maria Orietta BorghiIstituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS; Immunorheumatology Research Laboratory, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8967-9678
Pier Luigi MeroniIstituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS; Immunorheumatology Research Laboratory, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3394-1451
KU Leuven · BELabor (Italy) · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are valuable laboratory markers to screen for and support the diagnosis of various rheumatic diseases (known as ANA-associated rheumatic diseases). The importance of ANA testing has been reinforced by the inclusion of ANA positivity as an entry criterion in the 2019 systemic lupus erythematosus classification criteria. In addition, specific ANAs (such as antibodies to Sm, double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), SSA/Ro60, U1RNP, topoisomerase I, centromere protein B (CENPB), RNA polymerase III and Jo1) are included in classification criteria for other rheumatic diseases. A number of techniques are available for detecting antibodies to a selection of clinically relevant antigens (such as indirect immunofluorescence and solid phase assays). In this Review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of these techniques, as well as the clinical relevance of the differences between the techniques, to provide guidance in understanding and interpreting ANA test results. Such understanding not only necessitates insight into the sensitivity and specificity of each assay, but also into the importance of the disease context and antibody level. We also highlight the value of titre-specific information (such as likelihood ratios).

Indexed as

Antibodies, AntinuclearImmunologic TestsAutoimmune DiseasesBiomarkersClinical CompetenceConnective Tissue DiseasesFluorescent Antibody TechniqueHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansImmunoassayMass ScreeningRheumatic DiseasesSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, AntinuclearBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID33154583
OpenAlexW3096034674

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.