ArticleFrontiers in immunology2020
Evaluation of a Fully Automated Antinuclear Antibody Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay in Routine Use.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serosurvey ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence applications for immunology laboratory: image analysis and classification study of IIF photos.Immunologic research · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Accuracy of Estimated Endpoint Titer of NOVA View in Indirect Immunofluorescent Antinuclear Antibody Testing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Significance of co-positivity for anti-dsDNA, -nucleosome, and -histone antibodies in patients with lupus nephritis.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- Systemic Sclerosis-Specific Antibodies: Novel and Classical Biomarkers.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2023Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Value of Anti-Nuclear Antibodies: Results From Korean University-Affiliated Hospitals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 cells as a substrate is the gold standard for detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANA) in patient serum. However, the ANA IFA has labor-intensive nature of the procedure and lacks adequate standardization. To overcome these drawbacks, the automation has been developed and implemented to the clinical laboratory. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the analytical performance of a fully automated Helios ANA IFA analyzer in a real-life laboratory setting, and to compare the time and the cost of ANA IFA testing before and after adopting the Helios system. A total of 3,276 consecutive serum samples were analyzed for ANA using the Helios system from May to August 2019. The positive/negative results, staining patterns, and endpoint titers were compared between Helios and visual readings. Furthermore, the turnaround time and the number of wells used were compared before and after the introduction of Helios system. Of the 3,276 samples tested, 748 were positive and 2,528 were negative based on visual readings. Using visual reading as the reference standard, the overall relative sensitivity, relative specificity, and concordance of Helios reading were 73.3, 99.4, and 93.4% (
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.