You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Recognition and Relevance of Anti-DFS70 Autoantibodies in Routine Antinuclear Autoantibodies Testing at a Community Hospital
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Medicine, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmed.2018.00088 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John B. Carter, Sara Carter, Sandra Saschenbrecker, Bruce E. Goeckeritz |
| Abstract |
Antinuclear autoantibodies (ANA) displaying a dense fine speckled pattern (DFS, ICAP AC-2) on HEp-2 cells are frequently observed in clinical laboratory referrals, often associated with anti-DFS70 specificity. Anti-DFS70 positive patients rarely develop systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD), especially in the absence of clinical evidence or additional anti-extractable nuclear antigen (ENA) antibodies, prompting suggestions that an isolated DFS70-specific ENA may be an exclusionary finding for SARD. In this study, the frequency and diagnostic significance of anti-DFS70 autoantibodies was investigated in a community hospital cohort of patients undergoing routine ANA testing. ANA screening was performed by HEp-20-10-based indirect immunofluorescence, followed by ENA profiling using a multiparametric line immunoassay (LIA). Of 6,511 patient samples tested for ANA in 2016, the DFS pattern was identified in 1,758 (27.0%), 720 (41.0%) of which were anti-DFS70 positive by LIA. Of these, 526 (73.1%) revealed isolated anti-DFS70 reactivity, while 194 (26.9%) showed additional ENA specificities. Among 1,038 anti-DFS70 negative or borderline samples, 778 (75.0%) were ENA profile negative, while the remaining 260 (25.0%) showed a varied presence of other ENA specificities. Chart reviews of patients with an isolated anti-DFS70 ANA affirmed that ANA-related SARD is rare in the absence of clinical evidence or other ENA specificities, there being no case thus far identified. Rheumatoid arthritis patients occasionally had an isolated anti-DFS70 ANA and were positive for rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. In conclusion, the recognition of a DFS ANA pattern using a mitotic-rich HEp-2 substrate, followed by confirmation of anti-DFS70 specificity should be a routine ANA testing service. Use of an expanded ENA profile and clinical correlation is necessary to affirm the "isolation" of anti-DFS70 as the cause of an ANA. Recognition of isolated anti-DFS70 ANA enables reassurance of patients that SARD is unlikely, thus avoiding referral for more extensive testing. The presence of significant elevations of other ENAs may reflect SARD and warrants close clinical correlation and follow-up. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,841,915
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,730
of 5,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,461
of 329,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#75
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.