Vildan Turan Faraşat1, Talat Ecemiş1, Yavuz Doğan2, Aslı Gamze Şener3, Gülfem Terek Ece4, Pınar Erbay Dündar5, Tamer Şanlidağ1. 1. Department of Medical Microbiology, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Faculty of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey. 2. Department of Medical Microbiology, Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey. 3. Department of Medical Microbiology, Katip Çelebi University, Faculty of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey. 4. Department of Medical Microbiology, Izmir Medicalpark Hospital, Izmir, Turkey. 5. Department of Public Health, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Faculty of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the interpretation of the antinuclear antibody (ANA)-indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) test results based on the interpreter-related subjectivity and to examine the inter-center agreement rates with the performance of each laboratory. Patients and methods: The ANA-IIF testing was carried out in a total of 600 sera and evaluated by four laboratories. The inter-center agreement rates were detected. The same results given by the four centers were accepted as gold standard and the predictive values of each center were calculated. Results: The inter-center agreement was reported for ANA-IIF test results from 392 of 600 (65.3%) sera, while 154 of 392 results were positive. Four study centers reported 213 (35.5%), 222 (37.0%), 266 (44.3%), and 361 (60.2%) positive test results, respectively. In terms of the patterns, the highest and lowest positive predictive values were 72.3% and 42.7%, respectively, while the highest and lowest negative predictive values were 99.6% and 61.5%, respectively. The agreement for semi-quantitative evaluation at three levels of fluorescence intensity stated by four centers was detected in 100 sera at 87% 3(+), while the other two levels were 6% and 7%. The highest predictive value for the highest fluorescence intensity of 3(+) was found to be 71.9%. Conclusion: Significant differences may be observed among laboratories in terms of qualitative results, patterns, and semi-quantitative determination of the fluorescence intensity in the ANA-IIF testing, particularly at low fluorescence intensity levels and in those with speckled patterns. In case of any discrepancy between ANA-IIF test and clinical prediagnosis, the test should be repeated in another laboratory, if necessary.
Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the interpretation of the antinuclear antibody (ANA)-indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) test results based on the interpreter-related subjectivity and to examine the inter-center agreement rates with the performance of each laboratory. Patients and methods: The ANA-IIF testing was carried out in a total of 600 sera and evaluated by four laboratories. The inter-center agreement rates were detected. The same results given by the four centers were accepted as gold standard and the predictive values of each center were calculated. Results: The inter-center agreement was reported for ANA-IIF test results from 392 of 600 (65.3%) sera, while 154 of 392 results were positive. Four study centers reported 213 (35.5%), 222 (37.0%), 266 (44.3%), and 361 (60.2%) positive test results, respectively. In terms of the patterns, the highest and lowest positive predictive values were 72.3% and 42.7%, respectively, while the highest and lowest negative predictive values were 99.6% and 61.5%, respectively. The agreement for semi-quantitative evaluation at three levels of fluorescence intensity stated by four centers was detected in 100 sera at 87% 3(+), while the other two levels were 6% and 7%. The highest predictive value for the highest fluorescence intensity of 3(+) was found to be 71.9%. Conclusion: Significant differences may be observed among laboratories in terms of qualitative results, patterns, and semi-quantitative determination of the fluorescence intensity in the ANA-IIF testing, particularly at low fluorescence intensity levels and in those with speckled patterns. In case of any discrepancy between ANA-IIF test and clinical prediagnosis, the test should be repeated in another laboratory, if necessary.
Authors: Katrijn Op De Beeck; Pieter Vermeersch; Patrick Verschueren; René Westhovens; Godelieve Mariën; Daniel Blockmans; Xavier Bossuyt Journal: Autoimmun Rev Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 9.754
Authors: Susan S Copple; S Rashelle Giles; Troy D Jaskowski; Anna E Gardiner; Andrew M Wilson; Harry R Hill Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Edward K L Chan; Jan Damoiseaux; Orlando Gabriel Carballo; Karsten Conrad; Wilson de Melo Cruvinel; Paulo Luiz Carvalho Francescantonio; Marvin J Fritzler; Ignacio Garcia-De La Torre; Manfred Herold; Tsuneyo Mimori; Minoru Satoh; Carlos A von Mühlen; Luis E C Andrade Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Jan Damoiseaux; Carlos A von Mühlen; Ignacio Garcia-De La Torre; Orlando Gabriel Carballo; Wilson de Melo Cruvinel; Paulo Luiz Carvalho Francescantonio; Marvin J Fritzler; Manfred Herold; Tsuneyo Mimori; Minoru Satoh; Luis E C Andrade; Edward K L Chan; Karsten Conrad Journal: Auto Immun Highlights Date: 2016-01-30
Authors: Ingrid Garzón; Boris Damián Jaimes-Parra; Manrique Pascual-Geler; José Manuel Cózar; María Del Carmen Sánchez-Quevedo; María Auxiliadora Mosquera-Pacheco; Indalecio Sánchez-Montesinos; Ricardo Fernández-Valadés; Fernando Campos; Miguel Alaminos Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.329