Journal of clinical rheumatology : practical reports on rheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases · 2026
The Usefulness of Antinuclear Antibody Multiplex Immunoassay for Screening of Rheumatological Diseases: A Real-World Population-Based Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hijaze Eman, Razi Talish, Arbel Ronen, Yaron Shlomit, Sagy Iftach, Rozenberg Orit, Paz Ziv
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of BioPlex 2200 multiplex immunoassay (BI) for detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANA), compared with the gold standard, the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIF), as a screening methodology for autoimmune diseases within a general population.
METHODS: Cross-sectional, database-based analysis of the Clalit Health Services nationwide registry. Data were extracted from the Clalit Health Services database between 2014 and 2023. We included adult outpatients without a known rheumatic disease who underwent both IIF and BI testing simultaneously, ordered for nonspecific signs and symptoms primarily by primary-care physicians.
RESULTS: Among the 391,366 individuals tested, 67% were female, and the median age at testing was 49 years. Annual ANA testing volume increased from 23,802 in 2014 to 76,898 in 2023 (3.2-fold). Of the total, 33,234 (8.4%) tests were false negatives (BI-negative while IIF-positive), 42,021 (10.7%) were false positives (BI-positive while IIF-negative), 302,439 (77.2%) were true negatives, and 13,672 (3.5%) were true positives. BI demonstrated a sensitivity of 29.1% (95% CI: 28.7-29.6) and a specificity of 87.8% (95% CI: 87.7-87.9). The positive predictive value was 24.5% and the negative predictive value 90.1%.
CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support the use of the BI multiplex immunoassay as a primary ANA screening tool in the primary-care setting. On the basis of these findings, the Clalit Health Services laboratory network discontinued simultaneous IIF and BI testing.
KEY FINDINGS: The BI showed low sensitivity despite relatively high specificity, resulting in a substantial proportion of false-negative results compared with IIF. These findings indicate that it is not suitable as a primary screening tool for ANA in the primary-care setting.
METHODS: Cross-sectional, database-based analysis of the Clalit Health Services nationwide registry. Data were extracted from the Clalit Health Services database between 2014 and 2023. We included adult outpatients without a known rheumatic disease who underwent both IIF and BI testing simultaneously, ordered for nonspecific signs and symptoms primarily by primary-care physicians.
RESULTS: Among the 391,366 individuals tested, 67% were female, and the median age at testing was 49 years. Annual ANA testing volume increased from 23,802 in 2014 to 76,898 in 2023 (3.2-fold). Of the total, 33,234 (8.4%) tests were false negatives (BI-negative while IIF-positive), 42,021 (10.7%) were false positives (BI-positive while IIF-negative), 302,439 (77.2%) were true negatives, and 13,672 (3.5%) were true positives. BI demonstrated a sensitivity of 29.1% (95% CI: 28.7-29.6) and a specificity of 87.8% (95% CI: 87.7-87.9). The positive predictive value was 24.5% and the negative predictive value 90.1%.
CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support the use of the BI multiplex immunoassay as a primary ANA screening tool in the primary-care setting. On the basis of these findings, the Clalit Health Services laboratory network discontinued simultaneous IIF and BI testing.
KEY FINDINGS: The BI showed low sensitivity despite relatively high specificity, resulting in a substantial proportion of false-negative results compared with IIF. These findings indicate that it is not suitable as a primary screening tool for ANA in the primary-care setting.