Evaluation of Diagnostic Significance and Cost Effectiveness of ELISA and IFA for the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Disorders

Karumanchi, Deepthi; Oommen, Seema

doi:10.4172/1745-7580.1000155

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sharmin et al reported a sensitivity of 86.5% and Bentow et al reported a sensitivity of 81.5%. However, our results were higher than the reported 59% sensitivity of Karumanchi and Oommen [17][18][19].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

“…In contrast, the specificity of the two tests was different, whereas ELISA was more specific than IFA. This observation was also previously reported using different ELISA and IFA kits [18][19][20][21]. These variables were reflected in the positive and negative predictive values of the two procedures, where IFA showed a higher negative predictive value but a lower positive predictive value for SLE compared to ELISA.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…In our study, the sensitivity of IFA and ELISA were similar (77.78%). Previous studies showed that the sensitivity of the two tests was close to each other [18][19][20][21]. In contrast, the specificity of the two tests was different, whereas ELISA was more specific than IFA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Indirect Immunofluorescence and Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antinuclear Antibodies

Khalifah¹,

Almansouri²,

Mowallad³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The detection of autoantibodies directed toward nuclear antigens is one of the main criteria for the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), for which the most commonly used techniques are the enzyme immunoassay and immunofluorescence assay (IFA). However, the sensitivity and specificity of these tests vary between different techniques. Thus, in this study, we aimed to determine the superior method for detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) and compare the accuracy of tests ordered by rheumatologists versus non-rheumatologists.Materials and methods: We compared the sensitivity and specificity of the two assays in 149 patients from a non-selected population, who were sent to the immunology laboratory of King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah from 2018 to 2019.Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the indirect IFA were 77.78 % and 58.65%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values of IFA for SLE were 44.87% and 85.92%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were 77.78% and 80.77%, respectively. The negative and positive predictive values of ELISA for SLE were 63.64% and 89.36%, respectively. The highest number of false-positive IFA tests was requested by family physicians and the lowest was requested by rheumatologists. Conclusion: Our data show that IFA has a higher negative predictive value, while ELISA has a higher positive predictive value. The positive predictive value of the test can be improved by pre-selecting patients by specialist rheumatologists.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Indirect Immunofluorescence and Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antinuclear Antibodies

Khalifah¹,

Almansouri²,

Mowallad³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite being the "gold standard," the Indirect Immunofluorescent Antibody (IFA) test is not frequently utilized. The IFA-ANA test is a useful screening tool because it can identify antimitochondrial and other cytoplasmic antibodies, which ELISA cannot do [36]. The diagnostic usefulness of the recently developed solid-phase screening test Connective Tissue Disease-Screen (CTD-Screen) in identifying ANA in a "real world situation" was assessed.…”

Section: Enzyme Immunosorbent Assaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Proteomics and Its Role in Diagnosis of Auto Immune Diseases

2022

Al-Azhar University Journal of Virus Researches and Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "proteome" is the entire protein composition of a cell that is described at a given moment in terms of localisation, interactions, post-translational changes and turnover. Although it is far more complicated than genomics, proteomics is one of the most important methodologies for understanding gene function. It is critical for early illness diagnosis, prognosis and disease progression monitoring. It also plays an important function in medication development as target compounds. Biological fluids obtained from individuals with Auto Immune Diseases (AIDs) may be used to profile autoantibody reactions and proteomics methods have proven to be quite useful in this process. To identify proteins, proteomics methods such as tissue array and mass spectrometry (MS) in various forms are used. Scientists attempting to identify novel biomarkers in illnesses such as AIDs have recently been more interested in protein microarray technology. The goal of this study was to bring attention to the latest developments in proteomic analysis and to determine its function and clinical value in the diagnosis of autoimmune disorders.

show abstract

A Systematic Review: Comparison of Immunocytochemistry, ELISA, and Western Blot Methods in Alkaline phosphatase Measurement at Genistein-induced Osteoblast Cell

Ma’arif

Abada

Mahardiani

et al. 2022

Biomed. Pharmacol. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteoporosis is a bone disorder characterized by the decrease of bone mass along with bone micro-architecture damage and has a risk become a fracture. One of the causes of osteoporosis is estrogen deficiency. Genistein is a phytoestrogen compound in the isoflavone group containing a similar structure compared to 17β-estradiol, thus it can bind to estrogen receptors and produce an estrogenic effect. Genistein induction can stimulate bone formation and promote the increase of alkaline phosphate (ALP) activities in osteoblast cells which can be observed by immunocytochemistry or Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) or Western blot method. Using the PRISMA guideline technique, choose and strategize article searches by reading the title, abstract, and then the whole text of the article. Articles with the keywords "genistein or osteoblast cells or alkaline phosphate or immunocytochemistry or immunofluorescence or ELISA or western blot" were retrieved from databases including Google Scholar, PubMed, Researchgate, and Sciencedirect. 24 relevant research articles were uncovered as a result of this systematic review. Comparison of immunocytochemistry and ELISA methods in order to analyze the activities of ALP in osteoblast induced by genistein includes selectivity, sensitivity, processing time, and cost efficiency parameters. The immunocytochemistry method has a higher level of sensitivity and a faster processing time, whereas the ELISA method has a higher level of selectivity and less cost efficiency. The western blot method has selectivity for detecting complex-level protein expression.

show abstract

Evaluation of Diagnostic Significance and Cost Effectiveness of ELISA and IFA for the Diagnosis of Autoimmune Disorders

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

Comparison of Indirect Immunofluorescence and Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antinuclear Antibodies

Comparison of Indirect Immunofluorescence and Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antinuclear Antibodies

Proteomics and Its Role in Diagnosis of Auto Immune Diseases

A Systematic Review: Comparison of Immunocytochemistry, ELISA, and Western Blot Methods in Alkaline phosphatase Measurement at Genistein-induced Osteoblast Cell

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About