Loading…

Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays

Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. How...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of immunological methods 2022-08, Vol.507, p.113297-113297, Article 113297
Main Authors: Infantino, Maria, Carbone, Teresa, Brusca, Ignazio, Alessio, Maria-Grazia, Previtali, Giulia, Platzgummer, Stefan, Paura, Giusi, Castiglione, Caterina, Fabris, Martina, Pesce, Giampaola, Porcelli, Brunetta, Terzuoli, Lucia, Bacarelli, Maria-Romana, Tampoia, Marilina, Cinquanta, Luigi, Villalta, Danilo, Buzzolini, Francesca, Palterer, Boaz, Pancani, Silvia, Benucci, Maurizio, Manfredi, Mariangela, Bizzaro, Nicola
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3
container_end_page 113297
container_issue
container_start_page 113297
container_title Journal of immunological methods
container_volume 507
creator Infantino, Maria
Carbone, Teresa
Brusca, Ignazio
Alessio, Maria-Grazia
Previtali, Giulia
Platzgummer, Stefan
Paura, Giusi
Castiglione, Caterina
Fabris, Martina
Pesce, Giampaola
Porcelli, Brunetta
Terzuoli, Lucia
Bacarelli, Maria-Romana
Tampoia, Marilina
Cinquanta, Luigi
Villalta, Danilo
Buzzolini, Francesca
Palterer, Boaz
Pancani, Silvia
Benucci, Maurizio
Manfredi, Mariangela
Bizzaro, Nicola
description Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. However, data regarding the comparability of results obtained using different technologies across different platforms are scarce. In this study we compared eight different immunoassays, commonly used in current laboratory practice for detection of anti-ENA antibodies. Sixty patients suffering from different SARD, 10 inflammatory arthritis patients (disease controls) and 10 healthy blood donors were included in this comparative study. Sera were collected in 15 centers belonging to the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each method for antibodies to Sm, RNP, Ro60, Ro52, Scl70, CENP-B and Jo1. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the agreement among methods. Average agreement among methods was 0.82, ranging from substantial (k = 0.72) to almost perfect (k = 0.92). However, while the specificity was very good for all methods, some differences emerged regarding the analytical sensitivity. Diagnostic performance of current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection showed good comparability. However, as some differences exist among methods, laboratory scientists and clinicians must be aware of the diagnostic accuracy of the testing method in use. •Antibodies to ENA are important in the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases.•Many different immunological methods are available to the clinical laboratory.•Diagnostic performance of current immunoassays show good comparability.•Though agreement among assays is good, differences exist in diagnostic accuracy.•Clinicians and laboratory scientists should be aware of these differences.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jim.2022.113297
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2675601871</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022175922000849</els_id><sourcerecordid>2675601871</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtOHDEQRa2IKAwkH8AG9ZKNJ-VHv5IVGpEQCSWLwNpyl6vBo-k2sd1I8_cxGcKSVZVU516pDmNnAtYCRPN5u976aS1ByrUQSvbtO7YSXSt520N9xFZQLly0dX_MTlLaAoCABj6wY1U3PUBfr5jdLDHSnKtM-DCHXbj3lKoxxMrO2fOrn5f_liG4feWoQNmH-Uv1O9tMPIw8PxC3MVdhrJy393NI2WPlp2mZg03J7tNH9n60u0SfXuYpu_t2dbu55je_vv_YXN5wlJ3KXAy6GzRiD7oZ2lbVVo-d0g5Vj1JbVE4BamgFQNNJrUE5OaBArKF3SKM6ZReH3scY_iyUspl8Qtrt7ExhSUY2bd1A0SMKKg4oxpBSpNE8Rj_ZuDcCzLNZszXFrHk2aw5mS-b8pX4ZJnKvif8qC_D1AFB58slTNAk9zUjOx6LNuODfqP8L5FWJSQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2675601871</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Infantino, Maria ; Carbone, Teresa ; Brusca, Ignazio ; Alessio, Maria-Grazia ; Previtali, Giulia ; Platzgummer, Stefan ; Paura, Giusi ; Castiglione, Caterina ; Fabris, Martina ; Pesce, Giampaola ; Porcelli, Brunetta ; Terzuoli, Lucia ; Bacarelli, Maria-Romana ; Tampoia, Marilina ; Cinquanta, Luigi ; Villalta, Danilo ; Buzzolini, Francesca ; Palterer, Boaz ; Pancani, Silvia ; Benucci, Maurizio ; Manfredi, Mariangela ; Bizzaro, Nicola</creator><creatorcontrib>Infantino, Maria ; Carbone, Teresa ; Brusca, Ignazio ; Alessio, Maria-Grazia ; Previtali, Giulia ; Platzgummer, Stefan ; Paura, Giusi ; Castiglione, Caterina ; Fabris, Martina ; Pesce, Giampaola ; Porcelli, Brunetta ; Terzuoli, Lucia ; Bacarelli, Maria-Romana ; Tampoia, Marilina ; Cinquanta, Luigi ; Villalta, Danilo ; Buzzolini, Francesca ; Palterer, Boaz ; Pancani, Silvia ; Benucci, Maurizio ; Manfredi, Mariangela ; Bizzaro, Nicola ; on behalf of the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine ; Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><description>Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. However, data regarding the comparability of results obtained using different technologies across different platforms are scarce. In this study we compared eight different immunoassays, commonly used in current laboratory practice for detection of anti-ENA antibodies. Sixty patients suffering from different SARD, 10 inflammatory arthritis patients (disease controls) and 10 healthy blood donors were included in this comparative study. Sera were collected in 15 centers belonging to the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each method for antibodies to Sm, RNP, Ro60, Ro52, Scl70, CENP-B and Jo1. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the agreement among methods. Average agreement among methods was 0.82, ranging from substantial (k = 0.72) to almost perfect (k = 0.92). However, while the specificity was very good for all methods, some differences emerged regarding the analytical sensitivity. Diagnostic performance of current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection showed good comparability. However, as some differences exist among methods, laboratory scientists and clinicians must be aware of the diagnostic accuracy of the testing method in use. •Antibodies to ENA are important in the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases.•Many different immunological methods are available to the clinical laboratory.•Diagnostic performance of current immunoassays show good comparability.•Though agreement among assays is good, differences exist in diagnostic accuracy.•Clinicians and laboratory scientists should be aware of these differences.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1759</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7905</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jim.2022.113297</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35690095</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Agreement ; Autoimmune rheumatic diseases ; Cohen's kappa ; Diagnostic accuracy ; ENA ; Immunologic methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of immunological methods, 2022-08, Vol.507, p.113297-113297, Article 113297</ispartof><rights>2022 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35690095$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Infantino, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carbone, Teresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brusca, Ignazio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alessio, Maria-Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Previtali, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Platzgummer, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paura, Giusi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castiglione, Caterina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fabris, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pesce, Giampaola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porcelli, Brunetta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Terzuoli, Lucia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bacarelli, Maria-Romana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tampoia, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinquanta, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villalta, Danilo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buzzolini, Francesca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palterer, Boaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pancani, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benucci, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manfredi, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bizzaro, Nicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><title>Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays</title><title>Journal of immunological methods</title><addtitle>J Immunol Methods</addtitle><description>Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. However, data regarding the comparability of results obtained using different technologies across different platforms are scarce. In this study we compared eight different immunoassays, commonly used in current laboratory practice for detection of anti-ENA antibodies. Sixty patients suffering from different SARD, 10 inflammatory arthritis patients (disease controls) and 10 healthy blood donors were included in this comparative study. Sera were collected in 15 centers belonging to the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each method for antibodies to Sm, RNP, Ro60, Ro52, Scl70, CENP-B and Jo1. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the agreement among methods. Average agreement among methods was 0.82, ranging from substantial (k = 0.72) to almost perfect (k = 0.92). However, while the specificity was very good for all methods, some differences emerged regarding the analytical sensitivity. Diagnostic performance of current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection showed good comparability. However, as some differences exist among methods, laboratory scientists and clinicians must be aware of the diagnostic accuracy of the testing method in use. •Antibodies to ENA are important in the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases.•Many different immunological methods are available to the clinical laboratory.•Diagnostic performance of current immunoassays show good comparability.•Though agreement among assays is good, differences exist in diagnostic accuracy.•Clinicians and laboratory scientists should be aware of these differences.</description><subject>Agreement</subject><subject>Autoimmune rheumatic diseases</subject><subject>Cohen's kappa</subject><subject>Diagnostic accuracy</subject><subject>ENA</subject><subject>Immunologic methods</subject><issn>0022-1759</issn><issn>1872-7905</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtOHDEQRa2IKAwkH8AG9ZKNJ-VHv5IVGpEQCSWLwNpyl6vBo-k2sd1I8_cxGcKSVZVU516pDmNnAtYCRPN5u976aS1ByrUQSvbtO7YSXSt520N9xFZQLly0dX_MTlLaAoCABj6wY1U3PUBfr5jdLDHSnKtM-DCHXbj3lKoxxMrO2fOrn5f_liG4feWoQNmH-Uv1O9tMPIw8PxC3MVdhrJy393NI2WPlp2mZg03J7tNH9n60u0SfXuYpu_t2dbu55je_vv_YXN5wlJ3KXAy6GzRiD7oZ2lbVVo-d0g5Vj1JbVE4BamgFQNNJrUE5OaBArKF3SKM6ZReH3scY_iyUspl8Qtrt7ExhSUY2bd1A0SMKKg4oxpBSpNE8Rj_ZuDcCzLNZszXFrHk2aw5mS-b8pX4ZJnKvif8qC_D1AFB58slTNAk9zUjOx6LNuODfqP8L5FWJSQ</recordid><startdate>20220801</startdate><enddate>20220801</enddate><creator>Infantino, Maria</creator><creator>Carbone, Teresa</creator><creator>Brusca, Ignazio</creator><creator>Alessio, Maria-Grazia</creator><creator>Previtali, Giulia</creator><creator>Platzgummer, Stefan</creator><creator>Paura, Giusi</creator><creator>Castiglione, Caterina</creator><creator>Fabris, Martina</creator><creator>Pesce, Giampaola</creator><creator>Porcelli, Brunetta</creator><creator>Terzuoli, Lucia</creator><creator>Bacarelli, Maria-Romana</creator><creator>Tampoia, Marilina</creator><creator>Cinquanta, Luigi</creator><creator>Villalta, Danilo</creator><creator>Buzzolini, Francesca</creator><creator>Palterer, Boaz</creator><creator>Pancani, Silvia</creator><creator>Benucci, Maurizio</creator><creator>Manfredi, Mariangela</creator><creator>Bizzaro, Nicola</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220801</creationdate><title>Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays</title><author>Infantino, Maria ; Carbone, Teresa ; Brusca, Ignazio ; Alessio, Maria-Grazia ; Previtali, Giulia ; Platzgummer, Stefan ; Paura, Giusi ; Castiglione, Caterina ; Fabris, Martina ; Pesce, Giampaola ; Porcelli, Brunetta ; Terzuoli, Lucia ; Bacarelli, Maria-Romana ; Tampoia, Marilina ; Cinquanta, Luigi ; Villalta, Danilo ; Buzzolini, Francesca ; Palterer, Boaz ; Pancani, Silvia ; Benucci, Maurizio ; Manfredi, Mariangela ; Bizzaro, Nicola</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agreement</topic><topic>Autoimmune rheumatic diseases</topic><topic>Cohen's kappa</topic><topic>Diagnostic accuracy</topic><topic>ENA</topic><topic>Immunologic methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Infantino, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carbone, Teresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brusca, Ignazio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alessio, Maria-Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Previtali, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Platzgummer, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paura, Giusi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castiglione, Caterina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fabris, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pesce, Giampaola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Porcelli, Brunetta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Terzuoli, Lucia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bacarelli, Maria-Romana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tampoia, Marilina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinquanta, Luigi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villalta, Danilo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buzzolini, Francesca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palterer, Boaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pancani, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benucci, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manfredi, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bizzaro, Nicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>on behalf of the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of immunological methods</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Infantino, Maria</au><au>Carbone, Teresa</au><au>Brusca, Ignazio</au><au>Alessio, Maria-Grazia</au><au>Previtali, Giulia</au><au>Platzgummer, Stefan</au><au>Paura, Giusi</au><au>Castiglione, Caterina</au><au>Fabris, Martina</au><au>Pesce, Giampaola</au><au>Porcelli, Brunetta</au><au>Terzuoli, Lucia</au><au>Bacarelli, Maria-Romana</au><au>Tampoia, Marilina</au><au>Cinquanta, Luigi</au><au>Villalta, Danilo</au><au>Buzzolini, Francesca</au><au>Palterer, Boaz</au><au>Pancani, Silvia</au><au>Benucci, Maurizio</au><au>Manfredi, Mariangela</au><au>Bizzaro, Nicola</au><aucorp>on behalf of the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</aucorp><aucorp>Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays</atitle><jtitle>Journal of immunological methods</jtitle><addtitle>J Immunol Methods</addtitle><date>2022-08-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>507</volume><spage>113297</spage><epage>113297</epage><pages>113297-113297</pages><artnum>113297</artnum><issn>0022-1759</issn><eissn>1872-7905</eissn><abstract>Autoantibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENA) play a pivotal role in the diagnosis and classification of systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARD). In recent years, newly developed methods have enabled the simultaneous and quantitative detection of multiple anti-ENA reactivities. However, data regarding the comparability of results obtained using different technologies across different platforms are scarce. In this study we compared eight different immunoassays, commonly used in current laboratory practice for detection of anti-ENA antibodies. Sixty patients suffering from different SARD, 10 inflammatory arthritis patients (disease controls) and 10 healthy blood donors were included in this comparative study. Sera were collected in 15 centers belonging to the Study Group on Autoimmune Diseases of the Italian Society of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. We evaluated the analytical sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of each method for antibodies to Sm, RNP, Ro60, Ro52, Scl70, CENP-B and Jo1. Cohen's kappa was used to analyze the agreement among methods. Average agreement among methods was 0.82, ranging from substantial (k = 0.72) to almost perfect (k = 0.92). However, while the specificity was very good for all methods, some differences emerged regarding the analytical sensitivity. Diagnostic performance of current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection showed good comparability. However, as some differences exist among methods, laboratory scientists and clinicians must be aware of the diagnostic accuracy of the testing method in use. •Antibodies to ENA are important in the diagnosis of autoimmune rheumatic diseases.•Many different immunological methods are available to the clinical laboratory.•Diagnostic performance of current immunoassays show good comparability.•Though agreement among assays is good, differences exist in diagnostic accuracy.•Clinicians and laboratory scientists should be aware of these differences.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>35690095</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jim.2022.113297</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-1759
ispartof Journal of immunological methods, 2022-08, Vol.507, p.113297-113297, Article 113297
issn 0022-1759
1872-7905
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2675601871
source ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Agreement
Autoimmune rheumatic diseases
Cohen's kappa
Diagnostic accuracy
ENA
Immunologic methods
title Current technologies for anti-ENA antibody detection: State-of-the-art of diagnostic immunoassays
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T13%3A06%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Current%20technologies%20for%20anti-ENA%20antibody%20detection:%20State-of-the-art%20of%20diagnostic%20immunoassays&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20immunological%20methods&rft.au=Infantino,%20Maria&rft.aucorp=on%20behalf%20of%20the%20Study%20Group%20on%20Autoimmune%20Diseases%20of%20the%20Italian%20Society%20of%20Clinical%20Pathology%20and%20Laboratory%20Medicine&rft.date=2022-08-01&rft.volume=507&rft.spage=113297&rft.epage=113297&rft.pages=113297-113297&rft.artnum=113297&rft.issn=0022-1759&rft.eissn=1872-7905&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jim.2022.113297&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2675601871%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-1b48b4cc9046b7735a4f834dc39c24ac3d30c4071006824403d2bc1cc509dcef3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2675601871&rft_id=info:pmid/35690095&rfr_iscdi=true