酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)与间接免疫荧光法检测抗核抗体的比较

Abhijit Chaudhury, G.L.S Sumanth Kumar, Anju Verma, U. Kalawat, B. Ramana, B. Kumar
{"title":"酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)与间接免疫荧光法检测抗核抗体的比较","authors":"Abhijit Chaudhury, G.L.S Sumanth Kumar, Anju Verma, U. Kalawat, B. Ramana, B. Kumar","doi":"10.15380/2277-5706.JCSR.14.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Detection of antinuclear antibody (ANA) is used as one of the diagnostic criteria for autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). Both indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and enzyme linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) methods are used for this purpose. However, there are lack of data comparing these two tests from India. Methods: We prospectively studed 294 patients clinically suspected to be having ARD between April 2012 and September 2013. They were tested for ANA by IIF and ELISA methods. Representative samples positive by both the tests were processed again by a line immunoassay test to detect the specific antinuclear antibodies. Considering the IIF results as the ‘gold standard’, the utility of ELISA for ANA detection was analyzed. Results: Of the 294 samples processed, 181 (61.5%) were from female patients. By IIF 30% of samples in males and 40.3% sample in females tested positive. We found ELISA to have a poor sensitivity (45.8%) but good specificity (99.5%). The positive predictive value for ELISA were 98% and negative predictive value 76.2% respectively. Forty four samples positive by both IIF and ELISA were tested by Western blot to detect individual autoantibodies. Of these, only 24 samples showed the presence of one or more bands, while the remaining 20 (45.4%) were negative by line immunoassay. In our study anti-nuclear ribonucleoprotein/Smith was the most common ANA detected. Conclusions: The poor sensitivity raises concerns regarding the practice of initial screening for ANA by ELISA.","PeriodicalId":405143,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Clinical and Scientific Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with indirect immunofluorescence for detection of anti-nuclear antibody\",\"authors\":\"Abhijit Chaudhury, G.L.S Sumanth Kumar, Anju Verma, U. Kalawat, B. Ramana, B. Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.15380/2277-5706.JCSR.14.056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Detection of antinuclear antibody (ANA) is used as one of the diagnostic criteria for autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). Both indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and enzyme linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) methods are used for this purpose. However, there are lack of data comparing these two tests from India. Methods: We prospectively studed 294 patients clinically suspected to be having ARD between April 2012 and September 2013. They were tested for ANA by IIF and ELISA methods. Representative samples positive by both the tests were processed again by a line immunoassay test to detect the specific antinuclear antibodies. Considering the IIF results as the ‘gold standard’, the utility of ELISA for ANA detection was analyzed. Results: Of the 294 samples processed, 181 (61.5%) were from female patients. By IIF 30% of samples in males and 40.3% sample in females tested positive. We found ELISA to have a poor sensitivity (45.8%) but good specificity (99.5%). The positive predictive value for ELISA were 98% and negative predictive value 76.2% respectively. Forty four samples positive by both IIF and ELISA were tested by Western blot to detect individual autoantibodies. Of these, only 24 samples showed the presence of one or more bands, while the remaining 20 (45.4%) were negative by line immunoassay. In our study anti-nuclear ribonucleoprotein/Smith was the most common ANA detected. Conclusions: The poor sensitivity raises concerns regarding the practice of initial screening for ANA by ELISA.\",\"PeriodicalId\":405143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Clinical and Scientific Research\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Clinical and Scientific Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15380/2277-5706.JCSR.14.056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Clinical and Scientific Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15380/2277-5706.JCSR.14.056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:抗核抗体(ANA)检测是自身免疫性风湿性疾病(ARD)的诊断标准之一。间接免疫荧光(IIF)和酶联免疫吸附测定(ELISA)方法均用于此目的。然而,印度缺乏比较这两种测试的数据。方法:对2012年4月至2013年9月期间294例临床怀疑患有ARD的患者进行前瞻性研究。采用IIF法和ELISA法检测ANA。两种试验均呈阳性的有代表性的样品再次进行直线免疫测定试验,以检测特异性抗核抗体。将IIF结果作为“金标准”,分析ELISA检测ANA的实用性。结果:294份样本中,女性患者181份,占61.5%。经IIF检测,30%的男性样本和40.3%的女性样本呈阳性。我们发现ELISA的敏感性较差(45.8%),但特异性较好(99.5%)。ELISA阳性预测值为98%,阴性预测值为76.2%。采用免疫印迹法(Western blot)检测44例IIF和ELISA均阳性的个体自身抗体。其中,只有24份样品显示存在一个或多个条带,而其余20份(45.4%)经线免疫测定为阴性。在我们的研究中,抗核核糖核蛋白/史密斯是最常见的ANA检测。结论:较差的敏感性引起了人们对ELISA初始筛选ANA的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) with indirect immunofluorescence for detection of anti-nuclear antibody
Background: Detection of antinuclear antibody (ANA) is used as one of the diagnostic criteria for autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD). Both indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) and enzyme linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) methods are used for this purpose. However, there are lack of data comparing these two tests from India. Methods: We prospectively studed 294 patients clinically suspected to be having ARD between April 2012 and September 2013. They were tested for ANA by IIF and ELISA methods. Representative samples positive by both the tests were processed again by a line immunoassay test to detect the specific antinuclear antibodies. Considering the IIF results as the ‘gold standard’, the utility of ELISA for ANA detection was analyzed. Results: Of the 294 samples processed, 181 (61.5%) were from female patients. By IIF 30% of samples in males and 40.3% sample in females tested positive. We found ELISA to have a poor sensitivity (45.8%) but good specificity (99.5%). The positive predictive value for ELISA were 98% and negative predictive value 76.2% respectively. Forty four samples positive by both IIF and ELISA were tested by Western blot to detect individual autoantibodies. Of these, only 24 samples showed the presence of one or more bands, while the remaining 20 (45.4%) were negative by line immunoassay. In our study anti-nuclear ribonucleoprotein/Smith was the most common ANA detected. Conclusions: The poor sensitivity raises concerns regarding the practice of initial screening for ANA by ELISA.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信