ArticleCureus2026
Characterization of Antinuclear, Myositis-Specific, and Myositis-Associated Antibodies in a Large Sample of Patients With Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntinuclear antibody (ANA) testing is routinely employed for screening systemic autoimmune diseases due to its accessibility and practicality. However, its diagnostic and clinical significance in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the frequency and distribution of ANA, myositis-specific autoantibodies (MSAs), and myositis-associated autoantibodies (MAAs) in IIMs and to explore their interrelationships.
methodsIn this single-center study, adult patients with definite IIMs were included. ANA was assessed by indirect immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells, and MSA/MAA was analyzed using a commercial line blot assay, both performed at baseline.
resultsAmong 580 screened patients, 229 were excluded due to cancer-associated myositis (N=45), overlap myositis (N=21), unavailable serum samples (N=142), or missing ANA data (N=21). The final cohort included 351 patients, of whom 261 (74.4%) were ANA-positive (titers 1:80-1:1280). The predominant ANA pattern was isolated nuclear (61.7%), followed by cytoplasmic (18.0%) and nucleolar (6.9%). Multiple ANA patterns were observed in 13.4% of cases, while distinct patterns were identified in 34.1%. MSA and MAA were more frequently detected in ANA-positive patients, although they were also present in ANA-negative individuals.
conclusionsANA positivity was observed in approximately three-quarters of IIM patients, exhibiting heterogeneous immunofluorescence patterns across subtypes. Although MSA and MAA were more common among ANA-positive individuals, their occurrence in ANA-negative patients highlights the necessity of combined testing approaches. These findings underscore the complementary roles of ANA and MSA/MAA assays in the comprehensive immunological evaluation of IIMs.
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.