A hierarchical bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy to provide direct comparisons of immunoassays vs. indirect immunofluorescence for initial screening of connective tissue diseases

11Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) against immunoassays (IAs) as an initial screening test for connective tissue diseases (CTDs). Methods: A 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. Results: Direct 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%). FEIA 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Orme, M. E., Andalucia, C., Sjölander, S., & Bossuyt, X. (2021). A hierarchical bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy to provide direct comparisons of immunoassays vs. indirect immunofluorescence for initial screening of connective tissue diseases. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 59(3), 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0094

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free