Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Anti-extractable nuclear antigen antibodies (ENA) are markers of connective tissue diseases (CTDs).
Methods: We compared FIDIS reagents in the multiplex fluorescent microsphere immunodetection system to INNO-LIA and immunodiffusion for 174 antinuclear antibody-positive patients, 102 with well-defined CTDs and 72 disease controls.
Results: No significant differences were found in sensitivity or specificity between FIDIS and immunodiffusion, or between FIDIS and INNO-LIA for all anti-ENA in all CTD patients; nor were any differences found for individual anti-ENAs within distinct CTDs. The FIDIS sensitivity was 41% (anti-SSA) and 17% (anti-SSB) in lupus erythematosus (LE) or primary Sjögren's syndrome; 5% (anti-ribosome and anti-Sm) in LE; 17% (anti-RNP) in LE or mixed CTD; 21% (anti-Scl70) in systemic sclerosis; and 61% (anti-centromere) in limited systemic sclerosis. The specificity reached 88%-100%. Receiver operating characteristic curve areas did not differ between FIDIS and INNO-LIA. Agreement ranged from 91% (anti-SSB) to 99% (anti-Jo1) between FIDIS and INNO-LIA, and from 95% (anti-Scl70) to 100% (anti-Sm) between FIDIS and immunodiffusion. Samples scored positive with all techniques in 83% (anti-centromere), 70% (anti-RNP), 67% (anti-Jo1), 60% (anti-SSA), 40% (anti-SSB), 33% (anti-ribosome), 25% (anti-Sm) and 13% (anti-Scl70) of cases.
Conclusions: The diagnostic performance of FIDIS anti-ENA reagents is comparable to immunodiffusion and INNO-LIA.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2007.096 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!