Literature DB >> 31174821

A comparison of a fluorescence enzyme immunoassay versus indirect immunofluorescence for initial screening of connective tissue diseases: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

Michelle Elaine Orme1, Carmen Andalucia2, Sigrid Sjölander2, Xavier Bossuyt3.   

Abstract

The aim was to compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) for initial screening of connective tissue diseases (CTDs) and to evaluate whether combining IIF with FEIA adds value. A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted to identify fully paired, cross-sectional or case-control studies on ANA screening of CTD reporting results for IIF and FEIA. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 checklist. The reference standard was assessed against established classification criteria. The meta-analysis used hierarchical, bivariate and mixed-effects models to allow test results to vary within and across studies. Eighteen studies of good to fair quality were included in the review. IIF had a higher sensitivity than FEIA [cut-off 1:160, 7 studies, 3251 patients, 0.83 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) versus 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.80); cut-off 1:80, 7 studies, 12,311 patients, 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.93) versus 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.84)] but lower specificity [1:160, 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.87) versus 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95); 1:80, 0.72 (95% CI 0.62-0.81) versus 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.96)]. A double-positive test had a higher likelihood ratio (LR) for CTD (26.2 (95% CI 23.0-29.9)) than a single positive test (14.4 (95% CI 13.1-15.9) FEIA+, 5.1 (95% CI 4.8-5.4) IIF+). A double-negative test result had more clinical value for ruling out CTD than a single negative test (LR 0.15 (95% CI 0.12-0.18) versus 0.21 (95% CI 0.18-0.25) IIF; 0.33 (95% CI 0.29-0.37) FEIA-). A FEIA+/IIF- discordant result had a higher LR than an IIF+/FEIA- discordant result (LR 2.4 (95% CI 1.7-3.4) versus 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.7)). Because of the comparatively higher specificity of FEIA and higher sensitivity of IIF, the combination of FEIA and IIF increases the diagnostic value. Clinicians should be acquainted with the clinical presentation of CTD and aware of the advantages and disadvantages of FEIA and IIF to avoid misinterpretation.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antinuclear antibodies; Connective tissue disease; Fluorescence enzyme immunoassay; Immunofluorescence; Meta-analysis; Systematic literature review

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31174821     DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2019.03.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol        ISSN: 1521-6942            Impact factor:   4.098


  4 in total

1.  Clinical utility of ANA-ELISA vs ANA-immunofluorescence in connective tissue diseases.

Authors:  Omar Suhail Alsaed; Laith Ishaq Alamlih; Omar Al-Radideh; Prem Chandra; Samar Alemadi; Abdul-Wahab Al-Allaf
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-15       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  Evaluation of a novel particle-based multi-analyte technology for the detection of anti-fibrillarin antibodies.

Authors:  Michael Mahler; Grace Kim; Fabrece Roup; Chelsea Bentow; Nicole Fabien; David Goncalves; Boaz Palterer; Marvin J Fritzler; Danilo Villalta
Journal:  Immunol Res       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 2.829

Review 3.  The Past, Present, and Future in Antinuclear Antibodies (ANA).

Authors:  Juan Irure-Ventura; Marcos López-Hoyos
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-07

4.  Comparison of the analytical and clinical performances of two different routine testing protocols for antinuclear antibody screening.

Authors:  Concepción González Rodríguez; Sandra Fuentes Cantero; Antonio Pérez Pérez; Francisco Javier Vázquez Barbero; Antonio León Justel
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 2.352

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.