Objectives Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is frequent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is a potentially life-threatening complication with significant morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis aims to systematically determine the factors associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis–related interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). Materials and methods All primary studies which reported the factors associated with of RA-ILD were eligible for the review except case reports. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biological Medicine Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WANFANG electronic databases were searched through to December 30, 2022, for studies investigating the factors associated with RA-ILD. The methodological quality assessment of the eligible studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). 2 reviewers extracted relevant data independently. Then, weighed mean differences (WMDs) or pooled odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained for the relationships between the factors and RA-ILD. The statistical meta-analysis, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed using the Review Manager 5.3, and publication bias with Egger’s test were performed using the Stata12.0 software. Results A total of 22 articles were screened for a meta-analysis which involved 1887 RA-ILD patients and 8066 RA without ILD patients. Some identified factors that were associated with an increased risk of RA-ILD included male sex (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.54–2.39; P < 0.00001), older age (WMD = 5.77 years, 95% CI: 3.50–8.04; P < 0.00001), longer duration of RA (WMD = 0.80 years, 95% CI 0.12–1.47; P = 0.02), older age at onset of RA (WMD = 6.41 years, 95% CI: 3.17–9.64; P = 0.0001), smoking (OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.30–2.18; P < 0.0001). Five factors of laboratory items associated with the development of RA-ILD were evaluated in the meta-analysis. Compared with RA without ILD patients, positive rheumatoid factor (RF) (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.47–2.01; P < 0.00001) and positive anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31–1.90; P < 0.00001) increased the risk of RA-ILD. Meanwhile, RF titer (WMD = 183.62 (IU/mL), 95% CI: 66.94–300.30; P = 0.002) and ACPA titer (WMD = 194.18 (IU/mL), 95% CI: 115.89–272.47; P < 0.00001) were significantly associated with increased risk of RA-ILD. Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (WMD = 7.41 (mm/h), 95% CI: 2.21–12.61; P = 0.005) and C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = 4.98 (mg/L), 95% CI: 0.76–9.20; P = 0.02) were also significantly associated with the development of the RA-ILD, whereas antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive status was not significantly associated with increased risk of RA-ILD (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.00–1.60; P = 0.05). Conclusions This meta-analysis showed that male gender, older age, longer duration of RA, older age at onset of RA, smoking, positive RF, positive ACPA, elevated RF titer, elevated ACPA titer, higher ESR and higher CRP were associated with RA-ILD.
Objective:The primary aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of automated indirect immunofluorescence (automated-IIF) and fully automated solid-phase immunoassays (solid-phase assays), compared with gold standard conventional manual indirect immunofluorescence (manual-IIF) for antinuclear antibody (ANA) detection.Methods: Indirect meta-comparison was performed using prospective studies reporting comparative data between automated-IIF and fully automated solid-phase assays individually to conventional manual-IIF. Diagnostic tests regarding different automated solid-phase assays and automated-IIF for ANA detection were retrieved from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biological Medicine Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WANFANG electronic databases from their inception to January 2022. Assessment of the quality of the studies was undertaken using a second version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The investigated diagnostic indices including pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR), pooled negative likelihood ratio (NLR), pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of automated-IIF and solidphase assays, respectively. Relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) was calculated to indirectly compare the diagnostic accuracy of automated-IIF and solid-phase assays.To visualize results, we provide forest plots showing the RDOR with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the 2 methods against the "gold standard" manual-IIF by R software.Deeks' funnel was used to investigate the publication bias.Results: A total of 16 studies involving 6111 subjects were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled PLR, pooled NLR, pooled DOR and the AUC were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.84-0.86), 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.84), 14.22 (95% CI 8.55-23.65), 0.06 (95% CI 0.03-0.12), 287.0 (95% CI 124.30-662.68) and 0.983 for automated-IIF respectively, and as for solid-phase assays those were 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.75), 0.87 (95% CI 0.85-0.89), 5.66 (95% CI 3.33-9.62), 0.30 (95% CI 0.20-0.47),
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.