Cited by 37Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesVasculitis and related conditions

International multi-center evaluation of a novel chemiluminescence assay for the detection of anti-dsDNA antibodies

Open access
Bentow, C, Lakos, G, Martis, P, Wahl, E, Garcia, M, Viñas, O, Espinosa, G, Cervera, R +5 more·2016·Lupus

Abstract

Objective: Anti-double stranded desoxyribonucleic acid (anti-dsDNA) antibodies are considered fairly specific for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and their quantification is useful for the clinical management of SLE patients. We assessed the diagnostic performance of the QUANTA Flash dsDNA chemiluminescent immunoassay (CIA) in comparison to an ELISA, using patients from five participating countries. The main focus was to evaluate the correlation between anti-dsDNA antibody results from the CIA and global SLE disease activity, as measured by the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K). Patients and methods: A total of 1431 samples (SLE, n = 843; disease controls, n = 588) from five countries (Canada, USA, Portugal, Sweden and Spain) were tested with QUANTA Flash dsDNA (Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA). Data obtained with the QUANTA Lite dsDNA SC ELISA (Inova Diagnostics) were available for samples from three sites (Canada, USA and Sweden, n = 566). The SLEDAI-2K scores were available for 805 SLE patients and a cut-off of > 4 was used to define active disease. Results: QUANTA Flash dsDNA had a sensitivity of 54.3% for the diagnosis of SLE, combined with 89.8% specificity. Anti-dsDNA antibody levels were significantly higher ( p < 0.0001) in active SLE (SLEDAI-2K > 4; n = 232; median value 83.0 IU/mL) versus the inactive patients ( n = 573; median value 22.3 IU/mL), and the SLEDAI-2K scoring correlated with their dsDNA antibody levels (Spearman’s rho = 0.44, p < 0.0001). Similar but less pronounced findings were also found for the ELISA, in relation to disease activity. Conclusions: The QUANTA Flash dsDNA assay showed good clinical performance in a large international multi-center study. Additionally, the strong correlation between anti-dsDNA antibody results and SLEDAI-2K scores supported the potential utility of QUANTA Flash dsDNA for monitoring disease activity.

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 · 10.1177/0961203316640917

Cites

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?

  • For CIA using INOVA Diagnostics, the median diagnostic specificity for SLE is 96.0% (range 89.8-97.7).

    “| INOVA Diagnostics | 96.0 [89.8-97.7] | 39.3 [20.0-54.3] | 60, 61, 67 | CIA |”

    From Laboratory evaluation of anti-dsDNA antibodies. (2022) · cites this paper as [67]

    The Clinical performance section reports 89.8% specificity for the INOVA QUANTA Flash dsDNA CIA, matching the table’s lower bound. The Discussion reports 96.0% from a previous study, but this paper does not establish the cited table’s median of 96.0% or its upper bound of 97.7%. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For CIA using INOVA Diagnostics, the median diagnostic sensitivity for SLE is 39.3% (range 20.0-54.3).

    “| INOVA Diagnostics | 96.0 [89.8-97.7] | 39.3 [20.0-54.3] | 60, 61, 67 | CIA |”

    From Laboratory evaluation of anti-dsDNA antibodies. (2022) · cites this paper as [67]

    The Clinical performance section reports 54.3% sensitivity for the INOVA chemiluminescence assay in this study, and the Discussion reports 39.3% from an Italian study. Our copy does not establish 39.3% as the median across studies or document the 20.0% lower end of the cited range. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The specificities reported for CIA from INOVA Diagnostics were higher than those reported from DiaSorin, while the reported sensitivities for CIA from DiaSorin were higher than those reported from INOVA.

    “The specificities reported for CIA from INOVA Diagnostics (3 studies: 89.8%, 96.0%, 97.7% [60], [61], [67]) were higher than those reported from DiaSorin (2 studies: 82.9%, 84.9% [39], [47]), while the reported sensitivities for CIA from DiaSorin (78.6%, 84.6%) were higher than those reported from INOVA (20%, 39.9%, 54.3%) (Table 2).”

    From Laboratory evaluation of anti-dsDNA antibodies. (2022) · cites this paper as [67]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 37

Authors
Bentow, C., Lakos, G., Martis, P., Wahl, E., Garcia, M., Viñas, O., Espinosa, G., Cervera, R., Sjöwall, C., Carmona-Fernandes, D., Santos, M. J., Hanly, J. G., & Mahler, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Research, Inova Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA
  • Immunology Department, Centre Diagnostic Biomedic CDB, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  • Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (ES)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
Venue
Lupus
Published
2016-05-31
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
864-872
ISSN
  • 0961-2033 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0962
OpenAlex
W2418607842
Cited by
37
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lupus (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
anti-dsDNA antibodies, systemic lupus erythematosus, chemiluminescence immunoassay, SLEDAI-2K, disease activity monitoring, ELISA comparison, sensitivity and specificity, autoantibody quantification
MeSH terms
Adult, Antibodies, Antinuclear, Canada, DNA, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Female, Humans, Luminescent Measurements, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Male, Middle Aged, Portugal, Sensitivity and Specificity, Spain, Sweden, United States

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