Application of a combined protocol for rational request and utilization of antibody assays improves clinical diagnostic efficacy in autoimmune rheumatic disease

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 131, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 112-116

  Tampoia, Marilina ^a   Brescia, Vincenzo ^a   Fontana, Antonietta ^a   Zucano, Antonietta ^a   Morrone, Luigi Francesco ^b   Pansini, Nicola ^a  

^a POLICLINICO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINUCLEAR ANTIBODY; DOUBLE STRANDED DNA ANTIBODY;

ARTICLE; AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE; BLOOD SAMPLING; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMMUNOASSAY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LABORATORY TEST; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RHEUMATIC DISEASE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ANTIBODIES, ANTI-IDIOTYPIC; ANTIBODIES, ANTINUCLEAR; ANTIGENS, NUCLEAR; AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DNA; HUMANS; IMMUNOLOGIC TESTS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; RHEUMATIC DISEASES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33846624689     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Kavanaugh A, Tomar R, Reveille J, et al. Guidelines for clinical use of the antinuclear antibody test and tests for specific autoantibodies to nuclear antigens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:71-81.
2. Tozzoli R, Bizzaro N, Tonutti E, et al. Guidelines for the laboratory use of autoantibody tests in the diagnosis and monitoring of autoimmune rheumatic diseases. Am J Pathol. 2002;117:316-324.
3. Bizzaro N, Wiik AS. Appropriateness in anti-nuclear antibody testing: from clinical request to strategic laboratory practice. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2004;22: 349-355.
4. Bylund DJ, Nakamura RM. Importance of detection of SS-A/Ro autoantibody screening immunofluorescence tests for autoantibodies to nuclear antigens. J Clin Lab Anal. 1991;5:212-218.
5. Menard HA. Antinuclear antibodies: the medium is the message. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2000;18:429-430.
6. Walraven C, Naylor CD. Do we know what inappropriate laboratory utilization is? JAMA. 1998;280:550-558.
7. Hindmarsh JT, Lyon AW. Strategies to promote rational clinical chemistry test utilization. Clin Biochem. 1996;29:291-299.
8. Vitali C, Bombardieri S, Moutsopoulos HM, et al. Preliminary criteria for the classification of Sjogren's syndrome: results of a prospective concerted action supported by the European Community. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36:340-347.
9. Hochberg MC. Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum. 1997;40:1725.
10. Subcommittee for scleroderma criteria of the American Rheumatism Association diagnostic and therapeutic criteria committee: preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:581-590.
11. Tanimoto K, Nakano K, Kano S, et al. Classification criteria for polymyositis and dermatomyositis. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:668-674.
12. Plebani M. The clinical importance of laboratory reasoning. Clin Chim Acta. 1999;280:35-45.
13. Lock RJ. Rational requesting or rationing testing. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57: 121-122.
14. Sinclair D, Saas M, Stevens JM. The effect of a symptom related "gating policy" on ANCA requests in routine clinical practice. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:31-34.
15. Solomon DH, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, et al. Techniques to improve physicians' use of diagnostic tests: a new conceptual framework. JAMA. 1998;280: 2020-2027.