Cited by 36Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesVasculitis and related conditions

Practical Evaluation of Methods for Detection and Specificity of Autoantibodies to Extractable Nuclear Antigens

Open access
Orton, Susan M., Peace-Brewer, Amy, Schmitz, John L., Freeman, Kristie, Miller, William C., Folds, James D.·2004·Clinical and Vaccine Immunology

Abstract

Detection and specificity of autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a critical role in the diagnosis and management of autoimmune disease. Historically, the detection of these antibodies has employed double immunodiffusion (DID). Autoantibody specificity was correlated with diagnoses by this technique. Enzyme immunoassays have been developed by multiple manufacturers to detect and identify the specificity ENA autoantibodies. To address the relationship of ENA detection by DID and enzyme immunoassay, the performances of five immunoassays were compared. These included two DID and three enzyme-linked immunoassays (ELISA) (both screening and individual antigen profile kits). The sample set included 83 ENA-positive, antinuclear-antibody (ANA)-positive specimens, 77 ENA-negative, ANA-positive specimens, and 20 ENA- and ANA-negative specimens. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by two methods: first, by using the in-house DID result as the reference standard, and second, by using latent class analysis, which evaluates each kit result independently. Overall, the results showed that the ELISA methods were more sensitive for detection of ENA autoantibodies than DID techniques, but presence and/or specific type of ENA autoantibody did not always correlate with the patient's clinical presentation. Regardless of the testing strategy an individual laboratory uses, clear communication with the clinical staff regarding the significance of a positive result is imperative. The laboratory and the clinician must both be aware of the sensitivity and specificity of each testing method in use in the clinical laboratory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/cdli.11.2.297-301.2004

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Orton, S. M., Peace-Brewer, A., Schmitz, J. L., Freeman, K., Miller, W. C., & Folds, J. D.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Orton, Susan M.
Venue
Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
Published
2004-03
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
297-301
ISSN
  • 1556-679X (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-6811
OpenAlex
W2165333706
Cited by
35
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vasculitis and related conditions
Keywords
extractable nuclear antigens, autoantibody detection, double immunodiffusion, enzyme-linked immunoassay, assay sensitivity and specificity, latent class analysis, antinuclear antibodies, autoimmune disease diagnosis, assay comparison
MeSH terms
Antibody Specificity, Epitopes, Autoantibodies, Autoimmune Diseases, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Humans, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Sensitivity and Specificity, Antigens, Nuclear

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review