...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinica chimica acta: International journal of clinical chemistry and applied molecular biology >Analytical and clinical comparison of two fully automated immunoassay systems for the detection of autoantibodies to extractable nuclear antigens
【24h】

Analytical and clinical comparison of two fully automated immunoassay systems for the detection of autoantibodies to extractable nuclear antigens

机译:两种全自动免疫测定系统检测自身抗体可提取核抗原的分析与临床比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Abstract Background Detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) is increasingly substituted by fully automated solid phase immunoassays. This study evaluated the performance of an automated chemiluminescence immunoassay (CIA) and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) and compared their performance to that of IIFA. Methods The study included an unselected prospective study population suspected of systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease. ANA were measured by IIFA, while in parallel sera were tested by CIA QUANTA Flash CTD Screen Plus on the BIO-FLASH? and FEIA EliA CTD Screen on the Phadia? 250 system. As validation, retrospective cohorts of patients with ANA-associated rheumatic disease (AARD) and healthy controls were tested. Results Prospectively, sensitivity of IIFA, CIA and FEIA was 90%, 99% and 92%, respectively. Specificity was 76%, 76% and 84%, respectively. Total percent agreements between the three methods were 75.2% (IIFA vs. CIA), 79.2% (IIFA vs. FEIA) and 85.4% (FEIA vs. CIA). The AUC values were 0.95 for CIA and 0.93 for FEIA and did not significantly differ. Retrospectively in individual AARD cohorts, similar results were obtained comparing both CTD screens. Conclusions Both FEIA and CIA CTD screen significantly outperformed IIFA, with a higher specificity for FEIA and higher sensitivity for CIA. Based on ROC analysis, major contributor to the difference between the two solid phase immunoassays was the cut-off. Highlights ? Both QUANTA Flash and EliA CTD screen outperformed ANA immunofluorescence assay. ? EliA CTD screen had a higher specificity while QUANTA Flash was more sensitive. ? Major contributor to the difference between the two CTD screens was the cut-off. ? Both CTD screens are attractive alternatives for traditional ANA screening. ? With strong clinical suspicion and negative CTD screen traditional ANA is required.
机译:摘要抗核抗体(ANA)通过间接免疫荧光测定(IIFA)的背景检测越来越多地被全自动固相免疫测定取代。该研究评估了自动化学发光免疫测定(CIA)和荧光酶免疫测定(FEIA)的性能,并将其性能与IIFA的性能进行了比较。方法该研究包括涉嫌系统性自身免疫性疾病的未选择性前瞻性研究人群。 AAA通过IIFA测量,而在Bio-Flash上​​通过CIA Quanta Flash CTD筛选测试并行血清中的血清?和菲亚的菲亚尔·菲亚尔CTD屏幕? 250系统。作为验证,测试了患有ANA相关的风湿病(AARD)和健康对照患者的回顾性群体。结果前瞻性,IIFA,CIA和FEIA的敏感性分别为90%,99%和92%。特异性分别为76%,76%和84%。三种方法之间的百分比百分比为75.2%(IIFA与CIA),79.2%(IIFA与FEIA)和85.4%(FEIA与CIA)。 CIA的AUC值为0.95,FEIA为0.93,没有显着差异。回顾性地,在单个AARD队列中,获得了类似的结果,比较CTD屏幕。结论FEIA和CIA CTD筛查显着优于IIFA,对FEIA具有更高的特异性和对CIA的更高敏感性。基于ROC分析,两个固相免疫测定之间的主要贡献者是截止的。强调 ? Quanta Flash和ELIA CTD屏幕都优于ANA免疫荧光测定。还ELIA CTD屏幕具有更高的特异性,而量子闪光更敏感。还两个CTD屏幕之间的主要贡献者是截止的。还CTD屏幕都是传统ANA筛选的有吸引力的替代品。还具有强烈的临床怀疑和阴性CTD屏幕,需要传统的ANA。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号