ArticleJournal of translational autoimmunity2025
An international multicenter retrospective analysis of repeated anti-ENA testing in ANA-associated rheumatic diseases, a data-driven proposal to increase testing efficacy.
Article in Journal of translational autoimmunity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Evaluation of ANA Testing Pathways: Serological Incompleteness and Comparison of Stepwise Versus Upfront Parallel Reflex Strategies.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Autoantibody and biomarker detection in the follow-up of autoimmune diseases: state of the art and future perspectives.Journal of translational autoimmunity · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of antinuclear antibody detection by indirect immunofluorescence and line immunoassay with clinical correlation in suspected autoimmune disease patients: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Autoantibodies detection in ANA-associated rheumatic diseases (AARD) is not only used for diagnostic and classification purposes, but also for monitoring. In case of AARD it is questioned if repeated anti-ENA testing is of any substantial value. In this international multicenter retrospective study, repeated anti-ENA testing according to local AARD testing algorithms was investigated. Methods: Anti-ENA results (anti-SSA60, -Ro52, -SSB, -Scl-70, -CENP-B, -RNP, -Sm) over a 6 to 10-year period were extracted from the laboratory information systems of three participating centers. Time between repeated testing was determined and concordance analysis was performed. Results: The study included 28557 anti-ENA requests from 19388 patients (72 % female). In 15227 patients (78.5 %) only one anti-ENA test was performed (79.9 % negative), while 4161 patients (21.5 %) underwent multiple (median [interquartile range (IQR)]; 2 [2-4]) tests with a maximum of 31 tests. The median [IQR] time interval between anti-ENA testing for the total cohort was 364 [195-539] days. Concordance analysis demonstrated that repeated anti-ENA test results did not show any change in 3583 patients (86.1 %). Additional autoantibodies were observed in 243 patients (5.8 %). In 76 (1.8 %) patients a positive anti-ENA test was obtained after an initial negative anti-ENA test result, while in 167 (4.0 %) patients additional autoantibodies were detected after an initial positive anti-ENA result. Conclusions: Repeated anti-ENA testing with a median time interval of about one year is common independently of local laboratory testing algorithms, but showed a limited added value since only 1.8 % of the patients have demonstrated a positive anti-ENA test after an initial negative anti-ENA test. These data at least suggest that repeated anti-ENA tests should be discouraged and only be instigated by a change in clinical manifestations.
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.