Diagnostic value of screening enzyme immunoassays compared to indirect immunofluorescence for anti-nuclear antibodies in patients with systemic rheumatic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Authors
- Jeong, Seri; Yang, Dahae; Lee, Woonhyoung; Kim, Geun-Tae; Kim, Hyon-Suk; Ahn, Hyeong Sik; Kim, Hyun Jung
- Issue Date
- Oct-2018
- Publisher
- W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
- Keywords
- Anti-nuclear antibody; Immunoassay; Indirect immunofluorescence; Screening; Systemic lupus erythematosus; Systemic rheumatic disease
- Citation
- SEMINARS IN ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM, v.48, no.2, pp 334 - 342
- Pages
- 9
- Indexed
- SCI
SCIE
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- SEMINARS IN ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM
- Volume
- 48
- Number
- 2
- Start Page
- 334
- End Page
- 342
- URI
- https://scholarworks.korea.ac.kr/kumedicine/handle/2020.sw.kumedicine/3051
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2018.01.011
- ISSN
- 0049-0172
1532-866X
- Abstract
- Objective: This study aimed to review and compare the diagnostic accuracy of the screening enzyme immunoassay (SEIA) and indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) as anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) screening assays for patients with systemic rheumatic diseases (SRDs), including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjogren's syndrome (SS), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for articles published before August 2017. A bivariate random effects model was used to calculate pooled diagnostic values. Results: Thirty-three studies including 3976 combined SRDs, 2839 SLE, 610 SS, and 1002 SSc patients and 11,716 non-healthy and 8408 healthy controls were available for the meta-analysis. The summary sensitivities of SEIA vs. IIF were 87.4% vs 88.4% for combined SRDs, 89.4% vs. 95.2% for SLE, 88.7% vs. 88.4% for SS, and 85.4% vs. 93.6% for SSc, respectively. Meanwhile, the summary specificities of SEIA vs. IIF were 79.7% vs.78.9% for combined SRDs, 89.1% vs. 83.3% for SLE, 89.9% vs. 86.8% for SS, and 92.8% vs. 84.2% for SSc, respectively. Although the differences in sensitivity and specificity between SEIA and IIF were not significant in most subgroups, the summary sensitivity of SLE presented statistically significant changes. Conclusions: Our systematic meta-analysis demonstrates that both SEIA and IIF are useful to detect ANAs for SRDs. Between the two assays, IIF is a more sensitive screening assay than SEIA, particularly in patients with SLE. SEIA is comparable to IIF, considering the specificity and standardization. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - 3. Graduate School > Graduate School > 1. Journal Articles
- 1. Basic Science > Department of Preventive Medicine > 1. Journal Articles
![qrcode](https://api.qrserver.com/v1/create-qr-code/?size=55x55&data=https://scholarworks.korea.ac.kr/kumedicine/handle/2020.sw.kumedicine/3051)
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.