ArticleJournal of immunology research2026
Multicenter Analytical Comparison of Automated Quantitative Assays Versus Line Immunoassay for Anti-Ro/La Antibody Detection in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome.
Article in Journal of immunology research, 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.
- Multicenter Analytical Comparison of Automated Quantitative Assays Versus Line Immunoassay for Anti-Ro/La Antibody Detection in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome.Journal of immunology research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis multicenter study aimed to analytically compare the performance of automated quantitative assays-chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) and multiplexed bead immunoassay (MBI)-for detecting anti-Ro/La antibodies in Chinese patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS), compared to line immunoassay (LIA) that is most commonly used in China.
methodsBased on the Chinese Sjögren's Syndrome Collaborative Research Group, serum samples from 434 patients with pSS and 100 healthy controls were analyzed using LIA, CLIA, and MBI. Sensitivity, specificity, and qualitative agreement were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was carried out to compare the analytical accuracy among assays in detecting anti-Ro/La antibodies, and the DeLong test was used to compare areas under curves (AUCs).
resultsHigh specificity (95% to 100%) was observed in these assays, and LIA demonstrated the highest sensitivity for anti-Ro60 (92.6%) and anti-Ro52 (89.2%). CLIA and MBI exhibited comparable sensitivity to LIA for anti-La (50.9% vs. 50.2% vs. 48.2%). Qualitative agreement among assays was good for anti-Ro60 (κ: 0.84-0.93) and moderate for anti-La (κ: 0.74-0.86). MBI achieved the highest AUC values for anti-Ro60 (0.980), anti-Ro52 (0.970), and anti-La (0.935), outperforming CLIA and LIA (p < 0.05).
conclusionAutomated assays (CLIA and MBI) demonstrate high specificity and analytical accuracy for anti-Ro/La antibody detection in pSS. MBI achieved the highest accuracy, whereas LIA showed superior sensitivity for anti-Ro60/52 detection. CLIA provided reliable specificity but failed to detect anti-Ro52 in this study. Collectively, these findings indicate that CLIA and MBI may represent reliable alternatives to LIA, although validation in disease-controlled cohorts is required before clinical implementation.
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.