AbstractObjectivesTo compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) against immunoassays (IAs) as an initial screening test for connective tissue diseases (CTDs).MethodsA systematic literature review identified cross-sectional or case-control studies reporting test accuracy data for IIF and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), fluorescence enzyme immunoassay (FEIA), chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA) or multiplex immunoassay (MIA). The meta-analysis used hierarchical, bivariate, mixed-effect models with random-effects by test.ResultsDirect comparisons of IIF with ELISA showed that both tests had good sensitivity (five studies, 2321 patients: ELISA: 90.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 80.5%, 95.5%] vs. IIF at a cut-off of 1:80: 86.8% [95% CI: 81.8%, 90.6%]; p = 0.4) but low specificity, with considerable variance across assays (ELISA: 56.9% [95% CI: 40.9%, 71.5%] vs. IIF 1:80: 68.0% [95% CI: 39.5%, 87.4%]; p = 0.5). FEIA sensitivity was lower than IIF sensitivity (1:80: p = 0.005; 1:160: p = 0.051); however, FEIA specificity was higher (seven studies, n = 12,311, FEIA 93.6% [95% CI: 89.9%, 96.0%] vs. IIF 1:80 72.4% [95% CI: 62.2%, 80.7%]; p < 0.001; seven studies, n = 3251, FEIA 93.5% [95% CI: 91.1%, 95.3%] vs. IIF 1:160 81.1% [95% CI: 73.4%, 86.9%]; p < 0.0001). CLIA sensitivity was similar to IIF (1:80) with higher specificity (four studies, n = 1981: sensitivity 85.9% [95% CI: 64.7%, 95.3%]; p = 0.86; specificity 86.1% [95% CI: 78.3%, 91.4%]). More data are needed to make firm inferences for CLIA vs. IIF given the wide prediction region. There were too few studies for the meta-analysis of MIA vs. IIF (MIA sensitivity range 73.7%–86%; specificity 53%–91%).ConclusionsFEIA and CLIA have good specificity compared to IIF. A positive FEIA or CLIA test is useful to support the diagnosis of a CTD. A negative IIF test is useful to exclude a CTD.
Neutrophil fixation protocols suitable for substrates to detect anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence
