Journal
CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 42, Issue 10, Pages 1155-1160Publisher
WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2004.235
Keywords
antinuclear antibody; immunofluorescence; enzyme immunoassay
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Current clinical practice considers antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing as a screening test; this has a major impact on laboratory work with a growing volume of analyses that need to be performed rapidly, to maintain good specificity and sensitivity. Ongoing discussions have been raised in order to identify the best technology to use in ANA screening, taking into account both clinical and economical implications. The aim of our study was to compare three different enzyme immunoassays (EIA) with immunofluorescence (IF) assay in order to identify which test is better for use as a screening test. The study was performed on 473 sera and the three different EIA tests were based on nuclear homogenates from HeLa cells, purified antigens from HEp-2 cells and recombinant antigens, respectively. The concordance between EIAANA and IFANA techniques, determined by the kappa statistic, was acceptable, but not complete, and discrepancies between both EIApositive/IFnegative samples and IFpositive/EIAnegative were found. Both methods show interesting diagnostic abilities, however, the IFANA assay seems to be the first choice test in a wellstandardized immunofluorescence laboratory with experienced microscopists, whereas the EIA test might be useful especially in largescale ANA screening.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available