ArticleJournal of translational autoimmunity2026
Myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: An EASI survey on current clinical and laboratory practices.
Article in Journal of translational autoimmunity, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Detection of myositis-specific and myositis associated autoantibodies (MSA/MAA) aids in classification, diagnosis, and risk stratification of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). To identify opportunities for harmonization, we assessed laboratory and clinical variability in IIM serological testing. Methods: The European Autoimmunity Standardisation Initiative (EASI) developed questionnaires targeting laboratory medicine specialists and clinicians addressing test initiation, testing methods and algorithms, reporting and interpretation. This was distributed through two external quality assessment (EQA) providers (UK NEQAS and IfQ Lübeck) to laboratory medicine specialists and subsequently to clinicians involved in IIM diagnostics. Results: In total 100 laboratory medicine specialists and 56 clinicians responded. Clinicians prefer to restrict requests for MSA/MAA to clinicians specialized in IIM and 97% of them agree with the indications that ask for MSA/MAA analysis as proposed during the 256th European NeuroMuscular Center (ENMC) workshop. Analysis was almost exclusively performed by commercially available assays (99%). Most laboratories test the ENMC recommended specificities (≥95%), with exception of HMGCR (22%). Both ISO15189 accreditation coverage (39-68%) and antigen-specific verification rates (33-64%) were suboptimal. Implementation of IQC was poor. Primary screening for MSA/MAA using HEp-2 indirect immunofluorescence was considered inappropriate by the majority of laboratory medicine specialists (59%) and clinicians (69%). Result reporting is most often done (semi-)quantitatively (75%) as also preferred by clinicians (91%). Conclusions: Considerable variability exists in MSA/MAA test initiation, testing methods and algorithms, reporting and interpretation. Introducing clinical- and laboratory-specific recommendations may contribute to harmonizing the interpretation of routine diagnostics for IIM.
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.