ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2022
Analytical and clinical performance of different platforms simultaneously detecting 15 antinuclear antibodies.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicenter Analytical Comparison of Automated Quantitative Assays Versus Line Immunoassay for Anti-Ro/La Antibody Detection in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome.Journal of immunology research · 2026Article
- Ro60-Roles in RNA Processing, Inflammation, and Rheumatic Autoimmune Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Analytical and clinical performance of different platforms simultaneously detecting 15 antinuclear antibodies.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are invaluable biomarkers for the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases (AIDs). This study aims to compare the performances of line immunoassay (LIA), multiplex bead-based flow fluorescent immunoassay (MBFFI), and magnetic bar code immunofluorescence assay (MBC-IF) to detect ANA-Profile-15S.
methodsIn total, 184 samples from AID patients and 50 healthy controls (HCs) were collected. Fifteen ANAs (anti-dsDNA, nucleosome, histone, Sm, PCNA, ribosomal-P, SS-A/Ro52, SS-A/Ro60, SS-B/La, centromere B [CENP-B], Scl-70, U1-snRNP, AMA-M2, Jo-1, and Pm/Scl) were subjected to parallel detection by the LIA, MBFFI, and MBC-IF. The consistency between assays was analyzed. The discrepant results were further examined by chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA).
resultsAnti-SS-A/Ro52 and SS-A/Ro60 autoantibodies were the most common autoantibodies in ANA positive-profiles, and were detected with equal efficiency by the LIA, MBFFI, and MBC-IF (p = 0.101 and p = 0.732, respectively). The three assays showed excellent agreement (consistency range: 66.5%-97.5%), and total consistency was 85.8%. The MBFFI and MBC-IF assays were in good agreement in terms of ANA-Profile-15S determination; the kappa coefficient ranged from 0.59 to 0.95, except for the PCNA and PM-Scl. Of the 262 re-assessed divergent results, 124 (47.33%) were positive on CLIA; the various autoantibodies exhibited variable patterns. More importantly, the ANA-Profile-15S results of the MBFFI and MBC-IF accurately identified patients with AID; the area under the curves ranged from 0.642 to 0.919.
conclusionsThe novel MBFFI and MBC-IF assay performed well in detecting ANA-Profile-15S. The application of MBFFI and MBC-IF play important roles in laboratory diagnosis of AIDs.
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.