Cited by 30Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinically relevant discrepancies between different rheumatoid factor assays

Open access
Falkenburg, Willem J.J., von Richthofen, Helen J., Koers, Jana, Weykamp, Cas, Schreurs, Marco W.J., Bakker-Jonges, Liesbeth E., Haagen, Inez-Anne, Lems, Willem F., Hamann, Dörte, van Schaardenburg, Dirkjan, Rispens, Theo·2018·Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Abstract

Abstract Background: Accurate measurements of rheumatoid factors (RFs), autoantibodies binding IgG, are important for diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and for predicting disease course. Worldwide, various RF assays are being used that differ in technique and target antigens. We studied whether assay choice leads to clinically important discrepancies in RF status and level. Methods: RF measurements using four commercial RF assays were compared in 32 RF + samples. Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), the influence of the target antigen source – human IgG (hIgG) versus rabbit IgG (rIgG) – on measured RF levels was investigated in arthralgia patients and RA patients. Results: Substantial discrepancies were found between RF levels measured in the four commercial assays. Six samples (19%) with RF levels below or slightly above the cutoff in the rIgG-based Phadia assay were RF + in three assays using hIgG as the target antigen, some with very high levels. Direct ELISA comparisons of RF reactivity against hIgG and rIgG estimated that among 173 ACPA + arthralgia patients, originally RF negative in rIgG-based assays, up to 10% were single positive against hIgG. Monoclonal RFs binding to hIgG and rIgG or hIgG only supported these findings. In a cohort of 69 early RA patients, virtually all RF responses reacted with both targets, although levels were still variable. Conclusions: The use of RF assays that differ in technique and target antigen, together with the different specificities of RF responses, leads to discrepancies in RF status and levels. This has important consequences for patient care if RA diagnosis and disease progression assessments are based on RF test results.

Overview

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 · 10.1515/cclm-2017-0988

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Anti-dsDNA tests of differing design may lead to the differential classification of patients, as is the case for other autoantibodies such as rheumatoid factor and anti-CCP antibodies.

    “Anti-dsDNA tests of differing design may lead to the differential classification of patients, as is the case for other autoantibodies (e.g., rheumatoid factor and anti-CCP antibodies) (72)(73)(74).”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Falkenburg, W. J. J., von Richthofen, H. J., Koers, J., Weykamp, C., Schreurs, M. W. J., Bakker-Jonges, L. E., Haagen, I.-A., Lems, W. F., Hamann, D., van Schaardenburg, D., & Rispens, T.
Affiliations
  • Sanquin (NL)
  • Department of Immunopathology, Sanquin Research , Amsterdam , The Netherlands
  • Streekziekenhuis Koningin Beatrix (NL)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Medical Laboratories , Department of Immunology, Reinier de Graaf Groep , Delft , The Netherlands
  • OLVG (NL)
  • Reade (NL)
  • Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center , Reade, Amsterdam , The Netherlands
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Falkenburg, Willem J.J.
  • Rispens, Theo
Venue
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
Published
2018-02-10
Volume
56
Issue
10
Pages
1749-1758
ISSN
  • 1434-6621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1437-4331
OpenAlex
W2790420596
Cited by
30
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
ZonMw (436001001)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
rheumatoid factor, assay discrepancy, target antigens, human IgG, rabbit IgG, anti-citrullinated protein antibodies, joint pain, early rheumatoid arthritis, autoantibodies
MeSH terms
Animals, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Humans, Immunoglobulin G, Immunoglobulin M, Rabbits, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Rheumatoid Factor, Arthralgia

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