Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33640027›Full record

ArticleAuto- immunity highlights2021

The antinuclear antibody HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence assay: a survey of laboratory performance, pattern recognition and interpretation.

Anne E Tebo, Robert L Schmidt, Kamran Kadkhoda, Lisa K Peterson, Edward K L Chan, Marvin J Fritzler, Mark H Wener

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Auto- immunity highlights, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors.

Anne E TeboDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. anne.tebo@hsc.utah.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9553-298X
Robert L SchmidtDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Kamran KadkhodaImmunopathology Laboratory, Robert J. Tomsich Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Lisa K PetersonDepartment of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Edward K L ChanDepartment of Oral Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Marvin J FritzlerDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Mark H WenerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology & Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the interpretation and reporting of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 substrates based on common practice and guidance by the International Consensus on ANA patterns (ICAP).

methodParticipants included two groups [16 clinical laboratories (CL) and 8 in vitro diagnostic manufacturers (IVD)] recruited via an email sent to the Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists (AMLI) membership. Twelve (n = 12) pre-qualified specimens were distributed to participants for testing, interpretation and reporting HEp-2 IFA. Results obtained were analyzed for accuracy with the intended and consensus response for three main categorical patterns (nuclear, cytoplasmic and mitotic), common patterns and ICAP report nomenclatures. The distributions of antibody titers of specimens were also compared.

resultsLaboratories differed in the categorical patterns reported; 8 reporting all patterns, 3 reporting only nuclear patterns and 5 reporting nuclear patterns with various combinations of other patterns. For all participants, accuracy with the intended response for the categorical nuclear pattern was excellent at 99% [95% confidence interval (CI): 97-100%] compared to 78% [95% CI 67-88%] for the cytoplasmic, and 93% [95% CI 86%-100%] for mitotic patterns. The accuracy was 13% greater for the common nomenclature [87%, 95% CI 82-90%] compared to the ICAP nomenclature [74%, 95% CI 68-79%] for all participants. Participants reporting all three main categories demonstrated better performances compared to those reporting 2 or less categorical patterns. The average accuracies varied between participant groups, however, with the lowest and most variable performances for cytoplasmic pattern specimens. The reported titers for all specimens varied, with the least variability for nuclear patterns and most titer variability associated with cytoplasmic patterns.

conclusionsOur study demonstrated significant accuracy for all participants in identifying the categorical nuclear staining as well as traditional pattern assignments for nuclear patterns. However, there was less consistency in reporting cytoplasmic and mitotic patterns, with implications for assigning competencies and training for clinical laboratory personnel.

Indexed as

Anti-nuclear antibodiesCytoplasmic patternsIndirect immunofluorescenceMitotic patternsNuclear patternsPerformance survey

Identifiers

PMID33640027
PMCPMC7916270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.