2018
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.170849
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Anti-DFS70 in Antinuclear Antibody (ANA)–positive Patients Undergoing Routine ANA Testing in a New Zealand Public Hospital

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, reaching a definite consensus on their utilization as clinically reliable biomarkers for the exclusion of an SARD diagnosis will require additional multicenter trials with large, racially, ethnically and geographically diverse cohorts of different SARDs and healthy controls. These studies should use multiple highly sensitive and specific antibody detection assays, and carefully evaluate available or newly designed ANA-testing algorithms that include these antibodies [97,103,104,[128][129][130][131][132].…”
Section: Are Monospecific Anti-dfs70/ledgf Autoantibodies Clinically mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, reaching a definite consensus on their utilization as clinically reliable biomarkers for the exclusion of an SARD diagnosis will require additional multicenter trials with large, racially, ethnically and geographically diverse cohorts of different SARDs and healthy controls. These studies should use multiple highly sensitive and specific antibody detection assays, and carefully evaluate available or newly designed ANA-testing algorithms that include these antibodies [97,103,104,[128][129][130][131][132].…”
Section: Are Monospecific Anti-dfs70/ledgf Autoantibodies Clinically mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the patient selection domains, one study was assessed as having a high risk of bias and concerns of applicability because it only enrolled patients with available results of ANA and anti-ENA [ 31 ]. One study was assessed as having an unclear risk due to inadequate information [ 32 ]. For the index test, one study was assessed as having an unclear risk of bias and concerns of applicability because the index test threshold was not reported [ 33 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the reference standard, only one of the studies applied the classification criteria of SARD [2]. Due to possible heterogeneity in the clinical diagnosis and practice, the studies using reference standards other than classification criteria were assessed as having an unclear risk of bias and applicability in the reference standard [30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. For flow and timing, because none of the enrolled studies specified the time interval between the index test and the diagnosis of SARD, the appropriateness of the interval between the index test (anti-DFS70 antibodies) and the reference standard (the diagnosis of SARD) could not be assessed.…”
Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the low prevalence of monospecific anti-DFS70 in adult patients with AARD, several authors have suggested including tests for anti-DFS70 antibodies in the diagnostic approach for suspected AARD ( 24 , 25 , 35 , 49 55 ). A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed a high specificity for anti-DFS70 antibodies to exclude AARD among patients with a positive ANA-IIF ( 56 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%