ArticleJournal of rheumatic diseases2026
Comparative evaluation of chemiluminescent immunoassay and radioimmunoassay for the detection of anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies.
Article in Journal of rheumatic diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies are essential biomarkers for diagnosing and monitoring systemic lupus erythematosus. Given the logistical limitations of the Farr radioimmunoassay (RIA), this study aimed to determine whether chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) can serve as a suitable replacement in routine practice. Methods: A total of 807 serum samples were analyzed by CLIA and RIA. Quantitative agreement was evaluated with Spearman's correlation, Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland-Altman analysis. Qualitative concordance and diagnostic performance were assessed using contingency tables, Cohen's kappa, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Manufacturer thresholds guided binary classification, with the Youden index used to optimize the CLIA cut-off. Results: The correlation between CLIA and RIA was weak but statistically significant (p=0.108, p=0.002). Passing-Bablok regression was not feasible due to distributional constraints. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 14.16 IU/mL with wide limits of agreement (-87.05 to 115.37 IU/mL), indicating poor quantitative agreement. Cohen's kappa was 0.365, while PABAK was 0.812. CLIA showed low sensitivity (45%) but high specificity (94%) relative to RIA. ROC analysis yielded an area under the curve of 0.719, with an optimal diagnostic cut-off of 19.15 IU/mL, resulting in a modest gain in sensitivity (45% to 57%) accompanied by a decline in specificity (94% to 86%). Overall, a discordance rate of 9% was observed between methods. Conclusion: CLIA cannot replace RIA without compromising diagnostic accuracy. Despite its operational advantages and high specificity, the limited sensitivity, quantitative discordance, and risk of misclassification at low titers highlight the importance of threshold recalibration and clinical context.
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.