ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2021
Comparison of the analytical and clinical performances of two different routine testing protocols for antinuclear antibody screening.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Evaluation of ANA Testing Pathways: Serological Incompleteness and Comparison of Stepwise Versus Upfront Parallel Reflex Strategies.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Detection of Diagnostic Antibodies in Immune-Mediated Diseases: A Focus on Antigens and Technologies.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2026Review
- CytoBead ANA 2 assay - a novel method for the detection of antinuclear antibodies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Analytical and clinical performance of different platforms simultaneously detecting 15 antinuclear antibodies.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Comparison of the analytical and clinical performances of two different routine testing protocols for antinuclear antibody screening.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
backgroundThe diagnosis of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD) is based on the detection of serum antinuclear antibodies (ANA) for which indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) is the golden standard. New solid-phase immunoassays have been developed to be used alone or in combination with the detection of extractable antinuclear antibodies (ENA) to improve SARD diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performances of different ANA screening methods alone or in combination with ENA screening methods for SARD diagnosis.
methodsA total of 323 patients were screened for ANA by IIF, EliA™ CTD Screen, and ELISA methods. Agreements were calculated between the methods. Then, EliA™ CTD Screen positive samples were screened for ENA by line immunoassay (LIA) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA).
resultsThe diagnostic accuracy of EliA™ CTD Screen (79% sensitivity and 91% specificity) was better than that of ELISA or IIF. The combination of EliA™ CTD plus IIF had the highest sensitivity (93%). ENA determination revealed that Ro52 and Ro60 were the most prevalent specificities. The use of IIF alone was not able of detecting up to 36% of samples positive for Ro52, and 41% for Ro60.
conclusionsEliA™ CTD Screen has a better diagnostic performance when compared to IIF and ELISA. The combined use of EliA™ CTD Screen and IIF clearly improves the rate and accuracy of SARD diagnosis. The use of EliA™ CTD Screen as first-line screening technique allows the detection of antibodies, which could not be detected by IIF alone.
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.