ArticleCureus2022
Comparison of Indirect Immunofluorescence and Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antinuclear Antibodies.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical presentation of children with lupus nephritis from a low- and middle-income country (LMIC): an initial report from the Indian pSLE Nephritis Registry.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Seroprevalence of Zika virus and dengue virus infections in migrants in Italy.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe detection of autoantibodies directed toward nuclear antigens is one of the main criteria for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), for which the most commonly used techniques are the enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence assay (IFA). However, the sensitivity and specificity of these tests vary between different techniques. Thus, in this study, we aimed to determine the superior method for detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) and compare the accuracy of tests ordered by rheumatologists versus non-rheumatologists. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe compared the sensitivity and specificity of the two assays in 149 patients from a non-selected population, who were sent to the immunology laboratory of King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah from 2018 to 2019.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of the indirect IFA were 77.78 % and 58.65%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values of IFA for SLE were 44.87% and 85.92%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were 77.78% and 80.77%, respectively. The negative and positive predictive values of ELISA for SLE were 63.64% and 89.36%, respectively. The highest number of false-positive IFA tests was requested by family physicians and the lowest was requested by rheumatologists.
conclusionOur data show that IFA has a higher negative predictive value, while ELISA has a higher positive predictive value. The positive predictive value of the test can be improved by pre-selecting patients by specialist rheumatologists.
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.