ArticlePloS one2026
ANCA testing strategies: A single centre experience over the past decade in a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands.
Article in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn 2017 a new consensus for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) testing was published, based on data from tertiary referral centres for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV). AAV-prevalence in their tested population was relatively high. We analysed how the consensus approach performs in a large teaching hospital and tailored it to secondary care settings with lower patient prevalences in their population.
methodsPatients screened for ANCA between 2012-2023 were included; clinical data were retrospectively collected. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) was performed using EUROPLUSTM Granulocyte Mosaic 25 IIF. MPO/PR3 was detected by ImmunoCAP®250. Statistical analyses were performed in R.
results286/5518 (5.2%) patients tested for ANCA were positive: 63% had no AAV. Non-AAV patients often had other autoimmune diseases, malignancies, infections or used specific drugs. IIF and ELISA as first test showed good negative predictive values. ELISA as first test showed higher positive predictive value and specificity; performing a second test increased specificity. ANCA concentrations were higher in AAV than non-AAV, but ranges were wide.
conclusionThe majority of ANCA-positive patients did not have AAV. In our secondary care setting, ELISA performs best as first test to rule out and to rule in AAV. A second test should be considered with high clinical suspicion and a negative first test, or with low antibody concentrations, following the consensus. Additionally, we propose a second test when there is clinical doubt and a positive first test. This increases specificity and PPV, reducing false positives, which is especially relevant in secondary care settings.
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.