SEAPAL quality control analysis of rheumatoid factor measurement in 29 diagnostic laboratories.

Roberts‐Thomson, Peter; Langhans, T; McEvoy, Robert; Hollingsworth, Peter; Bonifacio, Elisabetta; Dawkins, Roger L.; Bradley, JD

doi:10.1136/ard.46.5.417

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Agglutination tests fail to discriminate among RF isotypes, which can be separated by radioimmunoassay, nephelometry, or ELISA. These methods have been found helpful when used routinely (19, 20), despite variations across laboratories (21).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value of laboratory tests in early prediction of rheumatoid arthritis

Saraux

Berthelot²,

Chalès³

et al. 2002

Arthritis & Rheumatism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To determine which laboratory test or tests at presentation best predicted a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) 2 years later. Methods. Two hundred seventy patients with early arthritis seen in 7 hospitals underwent comprehensive evaluations at 6-month intervals for 2 years, when the diagnosis of RA was assessed by 5 rheumatologists. The sensitivity and specificity of each test at the first visit for discriminating between RA (38%, n ‫؍‬ 98) and non-RA patients were determined. Optimal cutoffs for continuous tests were derived from receiver operating characteristic curves. Sensitivity and specificity of test combinations selected by multiple logistic regression were determined. Results. IgM rheumatoid factor (RF) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, IgG-antikeratin antibody (AKA), and latex test had the strongest associations with RA. These 3 tests formed the most powerful combination for distinguishing RA from non-RA. Conclusion. IgM-RF, IgG-AKA, and the latex test are the best laboratory tests for discriminating between patients with and without RA. Combining these tests slightly improves diagnostic value.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Value of laboratory tests in early prediction of rheumatoid arthritis

Saraux

Berthelot²,

Chalès³

et al. 2002

Arthritis & Rheumatism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Common tests for rheumatoid factors: poorly standardized but ubiquitous

Goddard¹,

Moore²

1988

Arthritis & Rheumatism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rheumatoid factor (RF) test results reported in the College of American Pathologists' surveys for 1983-1985 lacked inter-laboratory reliability and mutual validity. Using the 4 most popular commercial kits for RF testing, participating laboratories consistently identified as "positive" or "negative" all but the weakly positive samples. A wide range of titers was reported on qualitative testing, however. One popular kit using a modified sheep red blood cell agglutination technique yielded results that differed markedly from those with other kits. Investigators apparently have paid little attention to these discrepancies. In Arthritis & Rheumatism, from 1983 to 1985, over 50% of the articles that referred directly or indirectly to RFs omitted details of RF methodology. Until a reliable RF test is adopted, it is essential that such methodologic information be specified.In 1987, the major laboratory test still used to strengthen a clinical diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and claimed by some to have prognostic implications, is the detection of rheumatoid factor (RF) (1). The importance of the RF test is underlined by its continued inclusion in the diagnostic criteria proposed and modified by the American Rheumatism Association (2-5); yet, despite its key role, the RF test remains quite crude and lacks standardization.

show abstract

Rheumatoid factor measurement—continuing problems 70 years after discovery

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have been long-standing unpublished differences in rheumatoid factor (RF) results, based on the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia external quality assurance program. This study compared RF results between two commonly used commercial instruments. Serum samples were exchanged between a laboratory using a Beckman Immage immunonephelometer and another using a Roche Modular immunoturbidimeter. The World Health Organization (WHO) reference standard for RF (W1066) was then used to compare the two methods. The Roche immunoturbidimeter appears to have superior sensitivity. Furthermore, there is significant bias between the two instruments as levels of RF increase. Results from the WHO RF reference preparation correlated most closely with the results from the Roche immunoturbidimeter. Standardization for RF measurement is not optimal and has not been achieved between these two commonly used instruments. This may have clinical implications for patient management.

show abstract

SEAPAL quality control analysis of rheumatoid factor measurement in 29 diagnostic laboratories.

Cited by 8 publications

References 5 publications

Value of laboratory tests in early prediction of rheumatoid arthritis

Value of laboratory tests in early prediction of rheumatoid arthritis

Common tests for rheumatoid factors: poorly standardized but ubiquitous

Rheumatoid factor measurement—continuing problems 70 years after discovery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About