Why the study?
Does ELISA perform better than immunofluorescence for the detection of antinuclear antigens in the diagnosis of connective tissue disease?
Does ELISA perform better than immunofluorescence for the detection of antinuclear antigens in the diagnosis of connective tissue disease?
The choice between ELISA and immunofluorescence for ANA detection should be guided by clinical value, and selective test ordering is recommended to increase predictive value.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ANA assay selection should prioritize clinical context; leaves open ELISA superiority over immunofluorescence for ANA detection.
Determining the presence and specificity of antinuclear antigens (ANA) is a challenge to a laboratory involved in the diagnosis of connective tissue disease (CTD). The immunofluorescent technique (IF), once considered the gold standard, is more and more displaced by ELISA. ELISA can be fully automated and the interpretation does not require the extensive experience needed in IF. However, literature in which both techniques are compared does not give unequivocal conclusions that ELISA indeed performs better. The clue as to which technique is best in the cascade testing of ANA, is given by its clinical value, not only by its technical and logistic performance. Selective test ordering is strongly recommended to increase the predictive value of these tests. The pros and cons of both techniques are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jan MM Rondeel (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: