ArticleFrontiers in immunology2023
Complex patterns on HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence assay in a large sample referred for anti-cell autoantibodies detection.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The combination of patterns is a frequent and challenging situation in the daily laboratory routine of autoantibodies testing using HEp-2 cells indirect immunofluorescence assay (HEp-2-IFA). Recently, the Brazilian Consensus on Autoantibodies (BCA) named these combinations as complex patterns (CPs) and organized them into 3 subtypes: multiple, mixed, and composite. This study aimed to describe the most frequent combinations of HEp-2-IIF patterns according to this new nomenclature. Methods: Routine HEp-2-IFA results reported in January and June 2017 were reviewed using the new BCA classification. Visual pattern recognition was performed by experts on HEp-2-IFA readings, using the International Consensus on Antinuclear Antibodies (ANA) Patterns (ICAP) and BCA recommendations. Results: 54,990 serum samples from different patients were tested for ANA-HEp-2, and 11,478 (20.9%) were positive at a titer ≥ 1/80. Among these positive samples, 1,111 (9.7%) displayed CPs, divided into 95 different combinations. A higher proportion of CPs was observed in the pediatric age group. Multiple, mixed, and composite patterns were present in 85.3, 5.4, and 9.5% of the samples, respectively. In the multiple/mixed pattern group (n=1,005), double, triple, and quadruple combinations (ICAP/BCA codes) were observed in 97.7%, 2.2%, and 0.1%, respectively. The double nuclear pattern was the most prevalent combination observed (67.6%). The most common CPs registered were AC-4 (nuclear fine speckled) + AC-6,7 (nuclear discrete dots) (n=264); AC-2 (nuclear dense fine speckled) + AC-6,7 (n=201); AC-4+AC-8,9,10 (nucleolar) (n=129); and AC-3 (centromere)+AC-4 (n=124). All of these combinations were in the multiple subgroup. Conclusion: Almost 10% of positive results in the HEp-2 procedure displayed CPs. Among the 3 subtypes of CPs proposed, the multiple pattern was the most prevalent, especially in the pediatric population. The AC-4, AC-2, and AC-6,7 were the most prevalent single patterns observed in the combinations described in this study. There was a significant association between age and the prevalence of most combined patterns. The AC-4+AC-6,7 combination was the most prevalent complex pattern detected regardless of the age group. The AC-2+AC-6,7 was more prevalent in younger individuals. The concepts involved in the CPs definition should add value to the reading and interpretation of the HEp-2-IIF assay.
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.