Cited by 615Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

International recommendations for the assessment of autoantibodies to cellular antigens referred to as anti-nuclear antibodies

Open access
Agmon-Levin, Nancy, Damoiseaux, Jan, Kallenberg, Cees, Sack, Ulrich, Witte, Torsten, Herold, Manfred, Bossuyt, Xavier, Musset, Lucille +117 more·2014·Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

Abstract

Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) are fundamental for the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases, and have been determined by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) for decades. As the demand for ANA testing increased, alternative techniques were developed challenging the classic IIFA. These alternative platforms differ in their antigen profiles, sensitivity and specificity, raising uncertainties regarding standardisation and interpretation of incongruent results. Therefore, an international group of experts has created recommendations for ANA testing by different methods. Two groups of experts participated in this initiative. The European autoimmunity standardization initiative representing 15 European countries and the International Union of Immunologic Societies/World Health Organization/Arthritis Foundation/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention autoantibody standardising committee. A three-step process followed by a Delphi exercise with closed voting was applied. Twenty-five recommendations for determining ANA (1-13), anti-double stranded DNA antibodies (14-18), specific antibodies (19-23) and validation of methods (24-25) were created. Significant differences between experts were observed regarding recommendations 24-25 (p<0.03). Here, we formulated recommendations for the assessment and interpretation of ANA and associated antibodies. Notably, the roles of IIFA as a reference method, and the importance of defining nuclear and cytoplasmic staining, were emphasised, while the need to incorporate alternative automated methods was acknowledged. Various approaches to overcome discrepancies between methods were suggested of which an improved bench-to-bedside communication is of the utmost importance. These recommendations are based on current knowledge and can enable harmonisation of local algorithms for testing and evaluation of ANA and related autoantibodies. Last but not least, new more appropriate terminologies have been suggested.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203863

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Many studies recommend confirming positive ELISA results using CLIFT or Farr test to ensure improved specificity.

    “Therefore, many studies recommend confirming positive ELISA results using CLIFT or rarely Farr test, thus ensuring improved specificity [17,21].”

    From Anti-double stranded DNA antibodies: A rational diagnostic approach in limited-resource settings (2022) · cites this paper as [21]

    Recommendation 15 (Discrepancy between platforms; page unavailable) advises confirming positive results from lower-specificity alternative anti-dsDNA assays with CLIFT or Farr, which offer high clinical specificity. The paper identifies ELISA as an anti-dsDNA assay, but the recommendation is limited to anti-dsDNA testing; it does not establish that many studies make this recommendation or that Farr confirmation is rare. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [7]7. Kroshinsky D, Stone JH, Bloch DB, et al. Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Case 5-2009. A 47-year-old woman with a rash and numbness and pain in the legs. N Engl J Med 2009;360:711-20.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agmon-Levin, N., Damoiseaux, J., Kallenberg, C., Sack, U., Witte, T., Herold, M., Bossuyt, X., Musset, L., Cervera, R., Plaza-Lopez, A., Dias, C., Sousa, M. J., Radice, A., Eriksson, C., Hultgren, O., Viander, M., Khamashta, M., Regenass, S., Andrade, L. E. C., Wiik, A., Tincani, A., Rönnelid, J., Bloch, D. B., Fritzler, M. J., Chan, E. K. L., Garcia-De La Torre, I., Konstantinov, K. N., Lahita, R., Wilson, M., Vainio, O., Fabien, N., Sinico, R. A., Meroni, P., Shoenfeld, Y., Tervaert, J. C., Hamann, D., Derksen, R., Hooijkaas, H., Klasen, I., Limburg, P., Smeenk, R., van Daele, P., Elvin, K., Dahle, C., Skogh, T., Antonen, J., Haapala, A.-M., Hietarinta, M., Häkkinen, T., Hänninen, A., Jokiranta, S., Karjalainen, A., Laatikainen, A., Leirisalo-Repo, M., Luosujärvi, R., Miettinen, A., Siuro, J., Sved, S., Tuuminen, T., Walle, T., Coelho, F., Santos, M. J., Bogas, M., Ramos, J. P., Faro-Viana, J., Olsson, N. O., Chyderiotis, G., Bach-Nga, Aubert, V., Dahinden, C., Dayer, E., Mascart, F., Tomasi, J.-P., Vercammen, M., Verschueren, P., Houssiau, F., Lauwerys, B., De Keyser, F., Fierz, W., Heijnen, I., Keller, F., Müllner, G., Regenass, S., Roux-Lombard, P., Wirthmüller, U., Gilburde, B., Levi, R., Lipinsky, D., Barak, M., Mahmud, A.-S., Fishel, R., Foguel, M., Shay, K., Csernok, E., Schlüter, B., Becker, B., Mierau, R., Witte, T., Seidel, W., Frank, I., Kromminga, A., Hiepe, F., Conrad, K., Sticherling, M., Steiner, G., Valentyna, C., Alcalá, I., Alsina, M., José, A. M., Carrasco, Á., Fernández, L., Figueredo, M. Á., Gelpí, C., Jiménez, J., Juliá, M. R., López-Hoyos, M., Mozo, L., Muñoz, C., Muñoz, F. J., Palomino, P., Prada, Á., Hernandez, C. R., Roy, G., Ruiz, E., & Vargas, L.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital (FR)
  • Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (ES)
  • Hospital de São João (PT)
  • Hospital Prof. Dr. Fernando Fonseca (PT)
  • Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Carlo Borromeo (IT)
  • Umeå University (SE)
  • Örebro University (SE)
  • University of Turku (FI)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Statens Serum Institut (DK)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Newark Beth Israel Medical Center (US)
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • NordLab (FI)
  • Hôpital Lyon Sud (FR)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Shoenfeld, Yehuda
Venue
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
73
Issue
1
Pages
17-23
ISSN
0003-4967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125497658
Cited by
615
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 3
FWCI
39.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
antinuclear antibodies, autoantibody detection, indirect immunofluorescence, anti-dsDNA antibodies, autoimmune disease diagnosis, method standardization, method validation, expert recommendations, Delphi consensus, terminology
MeSH terms
Allergy and Immunology, Antibodies, Antinuclear, Autoantigens, Humans, Immunologic Tests, Terminology as Topic, Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology

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