ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022
The use of ELISA is comparable to immunoprecipitation in the detection of selected myositis-specific autoantibodies in a European population.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analytical performance of commercial myositis-specific autoantibody tests evaluated against immunoprecipitation assays as a reference standard: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism · 2025Pooled it
- Juvenile Myositis: Insights on Classification, Pathogenesis, and Therapies Over the Past 50 Years.Arthritis care & research · 2026Review
- Clinical Relevance and Methodological Comparison of Anti-MDA5 Antibody Detection: A Five-Year Retrospective and Exploratory Pilot Study.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- An update on autoantibodies in the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2025Review
- Dermatomyositis: Practical Guidance and Unmet Needs.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The reliable detection of myositis-specific autoantibodies (MSA) provides valuable clinical information regarding prognosis, clinical progression and diagnostic confirmation. Objectives: To evaluate the reliability of a commercial ELISA immunoassay in detecting myositis-specific autoantibodies in comparison to immunoprecipitation as the reference standard. Methods: Serum samples were chosen from a biobank of more than 3000 samples. Samples with a confirmed MSA on Immunoprecipitation (n=116) were evaluated in duplicate by ELISA to detect Mi2, MDA5, Jo1, EJ, KS, PL-7 and PL-12 (Medical & Biological Laboratories Co. Ltd, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan). Healthy control samples (n=246) confirmed autoantibody negative by immunoprecipitation were similarly assessed. Results: There was a very good agreement between ELISA and immunoprecipitation for serum samples containing anti-Mi2, MDA5, Jo1, EJ, KS and PL-7 and PL-12 auto-antibodies. Cohen's κ values ranged from 0.86-1 for the measured autoantibodies on ELISA. Conclusion: ELISA was an accurate method for detecting anti-synthetase, anti-Mi2 and anti-MDA5 autoantibodies.
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.