Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40664440›Full record

ArticleLupus science & medicine2025

Clinical evaluation of the novel digital liquid chip method for anti-dsDNA detection in SLE.

Yina Bai, Rui Yu, Chiyuan Xue, Qian Wang, Xinping Tian, Xiaofeng Zeng, Mengtao Li, Chaojun Hu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Lupus science & medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Yina Bai *Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College; National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology; Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Rui Yu *Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College; National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology; Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-9161-3512
Chiyuan XueDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College; National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology; Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Qian WangDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College; National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology; Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xinping TianDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College; National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology; Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xiaofeng ZengDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College; National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology; Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-3883-2318
Mengtao LiDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College; National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology; Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-4171-9738
Chaojun HuDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College; National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), Ministry of Science & Technology; Key Laboratory of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Ministry of Education, Beijing, People's Republic of China huchaojun818@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the digital liquid chip method (DLCM) compared with indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) for anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibody detection in SLE.

methodsThe retrospective study consecutively enrolled 1349 patients, including 698 with SLE and 651 with other autoimmune diseases at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Anti-dsDNA antibodies were detected using IIF (EUROIMMUN, Luebeck, Germany), CLIA (YHLO, Shenzhen, China) and DLCM (Livzon, Zhuhai, China). The sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of each method and combination were compared at the recommended manufacturer cut-offs. The agreement between methods and the association between antibody levels and clinical characteristics including disease activity, complement levels and organ involvement were also evaluated.

resultsAll methods exhibited high specificity, while IIF performed best (98.5%), significantly greater than CLIA (96.3%) and DLCM (96.6%) (p < 0.05). CLIA demonstrated the highest sensitivity (48.1%), outperforming IIF (36.0%) and DLCM (41.4%) (p<0.001). Cohen's kappa indicated substantial positive agreement between DLCM and CLIA (κ=0.67), and moderate agreement between IIF and the other methods (κ=0.52-0.55). Combining IIF with DLCM or CLIA improved diagnosis performance, with IIF+CLIA achieving the highest sensitivity (54.0%), accuracy (74.1%) and AUC (0.75). Moreover, anti-dsDNA positivity was strongly associated with lower complement levels (C3: 0.71 vs 0.90 g/L in DLCM+ vs DLCM-, p<0.001) and moderate-severe disease activity (65.0% DLCM positive). DLCM uniquely predicted musculoskeletal involvement (55.3% vs 44.7%, p<0.01). However, the diagnostic performance for renal involvement was limited (sensitivity 46.9%, specificity 56.3%, AUC=0.52).

conclusionsDLCM demonstrated substantial agreement with CLIA and held potential for SLE diagnosis and monitoring. A multiassay strategy, using a sensitive assay like CLIA or DLCM for initial screening and a highly specific assay like IIF for confirmation, optimises diagnostic performance for anti-dsDNA antibody detection in SLE.

Indexed as

Antibodies, AntinuclearDNALupus Erythematosus, SystemicAdultFemaleFluorescent Antibody Technique, IndirectHumansImmunoassayLuminescent MeasurementsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultAntibodies, Antinuclearanti-dsDNA autoantibodyDNAAutoantibodiesAutoimmune DiseasesSensitivity and SpecificitySystemic Lupus Erythematosus

Identifiers

PMID40664440
PMCPMC12265827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.