ReviewAdvances in laboratory medicine2021
Update and clinical management of anti-DNA auto-antibodies.
Review in Advances in laboratory medicine, 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.
- Advances and pitfalls in anti-double-stranded DNA autoantibody detection and interpretation.World journal of biological chemistry · 2026Review
- Association Between Nutritional Status, Body Composition, and Disease Activity in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: An Exploratory Retrospective Study.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Combining Anti-Mitochondrial Antibodies, Anti-Histone, and PLA2/COX Biomarkers to Increase Their Diagnostic Accuracy for Autism Spectrum Disorders.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Longitudinal study of patients with discrepant results in CLIFT and a solid-phase dsDNA antibody assay: does a gold standard dsDNA assay exist?Lupus science & medicine · 2023Observational
- Assessment of a combination of plasma anti-histone autoantibodies and PLA2/PE ratio as potential biomarkers to clinically predict autism spectrum disorders.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anti-deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) antibodies in the clinical laboratory are intimately linked to the diagnosis and monitoring of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); however, the characteristics of the analytical methods and the properties of the antibodies themselves are heterogeneous. To review the definition and properties of anti-double-stranded anti-DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, the adequacy of analytical methods, and the clinical requirements for this biomarker. Through PubMed we searched the existing literature with the terms anti-dsDNA, editorial, review, guideline, meta-analysis and SLE. The last search, anti-dsDNA and SLE restricted to the last two years. Information was expanded through related articles and those published in official state bodies related to anti-dsDNA and SLE. Clinical laboratory methods for anti-dsDNA analysis and their characteristics are analyze. The clinical utility of anti-dsDNA in its diagnostic, clinical association and follow-up aspects of SLE is reviewed. There is wide variability in analytical methods and deficits in standardization persist. They are part of the current SLE classification criteria and are used as markers in the follow-up of the disease. Their diagnostic usefulness improves when they are determined in antinuclear antibody (ANA)-positive patients. In follow-up, quantification is of interest, preferably with the same analytical method (given the deficits in standardization).
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.