ArticleScientific reports2021
Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- The association between serum antinuclear antibodies and premature ovarian insufficiency: a meta-analysis.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnosis of Systemic Rheumatic Disease Using the Connective Tissue Disease Screen.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Mapping of the Antinuclear Autoantibodies in Sudanese patients infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus after HAART receiving: A cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Basic Investigations in Pediatric Rheumatology.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2024Review
- Duplex Vertical-Flow Rapid Tests for Point-of-Care Detection of Anti-dsDNA and Anti-Nuclear Autoantibodies.Biosensors · 2024Article
- Phospholipase C Zeta 1 (PLCZ1): The Function and Potential for Fertility Assessment and In Vitro Embryo Production in Cattle and Horses.Veterinary sciences · 2023Review
- Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay: Types and Applications.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Review
- The Past, Present, and Future in Antinuclear Antibodies (ANA).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comprehensive autoantibody profiles in systemic sclerosis: Clinical cluster analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Not all autoantibodies are clinically relevant. Classic and novel autoantibodies in Sjögren's syndrome: A critical review.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- The clinical value of indirect immunofluorescence for screening anti-rods and rings antibodies: A retrospective study of two centers in China.Frontiers in immunology · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the performance of ANA-ELISA for CTDs screening and diagnosis and comparing it to the conventional ANA-IIF. ANA-ELISA is a solid-phase immune assay includes 17 ANA-targeted recombinant antigens; dsDNA, Sm-D, Rib-P, PCNA, U1-RNP (70, A, C), SS-A/Ro (52 and 60), SS-B/La, Centromere B, Scl-70, Fibrillarin, RNA Polymerase III, Jo-1, Mi-2, and PM-Scl. During the period between March till December 2016 all requests for ANA from primary, secondary, and tertiary care centers were processed with both techniques; ANA-IIF and ANA-ELISA. The electronic medical record of these patients was reviewed looking for CTD diagnosis documented by the Senior rheumatologist. SPSS 22 is used for analysis. Between March and December 2016, a total of 12,439 ANA tests were requested. 1457 patients were assessed by the rheumatologist and included in the analysis. At a cut-off ratio ≥ 1.0 for ANA-ELISA and a dilutional titre ≥ 1:80 for ANA-IIF, the sensitivity of ANA-IIF and ANA-ELISA for all CTDs were 63.3% vs 74.8% respectively. For the SLE it was 64.3% vs 76.9%, Sjogren's Syndrome was 50% vs 76.9% respectively. The overall specificity of ANA-ELISA was 89.05%, which was slightly better than ANA-IIF 86.72%. The clinical performance of ANA-ELISA for CTDs screening showed better sensitivity and specificity as compared to the conventional ANA-IIF in our cohort.
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.