ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Interlaboratory comparison of immunoprecipitation-based testing for myositis-specific autoantibodies.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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
Introduction: Myositis-specific autoantibodies (MSAs) are clinically important biomarkers that help classify idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and guide clinical management, but reliable detection remains challenging. Immunoprecipitation (IP) is widely regarded as a reference method for MSA detection in specialist laboratories. However, IP comprises a range of related techniques rather than a single standardised assay, and variability between expert laboratories using different IP-based workflows is not well characterised. Methods: Serum samples previously submitted to the Bath Diagnostic Serology Service were distributed to three collaborating reference laboratories. Centres analysed samples using their routine workflows, which included radiolabelled protein IP, RNA-IP, IP-western blotting, IP-mass spectrometry, and supplementary immunoassays. Results were interpreted within each laboratory's diagnostic framework, and interlaboratory concordance of MSA detection and specificity assignment was evaluated. Results: Thirty-two samples were included. Overall concordance across overlap groups ranged from 63-78%. Agreement varied by MSA specificity and methodological scope. Anti-Zo, anti-NXP2 and anti-TIF1γ demonstrated the highest reproducibility, whereas anti-PL-7, anti-Jo-1, anti-EJ, anti-Ha and anti-HMGCR were identified only by isolated laboratories. Differences were consistent with variation in IP method, including antigen source, detection modality and availability of reference sera. Complementary assays played an essential role in anti-MDA5, anti-HMGCR and anti-NXP2 antibody detection. Discussion: These findings demonstrate that IP-based testing should be considered a framework of expert diagnostic practice rather than a single uniform assay. Greater transparency in laboratory methods and reporting practices may improve interpretation of autoantibody results and support more consistent comparison of MSA results across clinical and research 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.