Comparison between enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence for detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies.

EINSTEIN-SAO PAULO(2020)

引用 3|浏览2
暂无评分
摘要
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the performance of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and indirect immunofluorescence methods for the detection of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in a routine clinical laboratory setting. METHODS:A total of 227 samples were tested by indirect immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with antigen specificity for antiproteinase 3 and antimyeloperoxidase. The proportions of positive samples were compared by McNemar hypotheses and agreement was described by Cohen's Kappa coefficient. RESULTS:The agreement of the tests was 96.5%, and the Kappa coefficient obtained was 0.70 (95%CI: 0.50-0.90; p<0.001). Considering indirect immunofluorescence as the gold standard, the sensitivity of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 0.62 and the specificity was 0.99, with diagnostic accuracy in 96% of cases. Some samples were negative in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and positive in indirect immunofluorescence. This situation occurred in all immunofluorescence patterns, but particularly in atypical patterns. Two samples with antiproteinase 3 positivity were considered negative in indirect immunofluorescence. CONCLUSION:The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay had high specificity but lower sensitivity. The performance of indirect immunofluorescence increases diagnostic sensitivity, while the search for antiproteinase 3 by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay may also add diagnostic power.
更多
查看译文
关键词
Autoimmune diseases,Autoantibodies,Antibodies,antineutrophil cytoplasmic,Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,Fluorescent antibody technique,indirect
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要