English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background The indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) using HEp-2 cell substrates is the preferred method by some for detecting antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as it demonstrates a number of characteristic staining patterns that reflect the cellular components bound as well as semi-quantitative results. Lack of harmonized nomenclature for HEp-2 IFA patterns, subjectivity in interpretation and variability in the number of patterns reported by different laboratories pose significant harmonization challenges. The main objectives of this study were to assess current practice in laboratory assessment of HEp-2 IFA, identify gaps and define strategies to improve reading, interpretation and reporting. Methods We developed and administered a 24-item survey based on four domains: educational and professional background of participants, current practice of HEp-2 IFA testing and training, gap assessment and the perceived value of International Consensus on Antinuclear Antibody Patterns (ICAP) and other factors in HEp-2 IFA assessment. The Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists (AMLI) and American Society for Clinical Pathology administered the survey from April 1 to June 30, 2018, to members involved in ANA testing. This report summarizes the survey results and discussion from a dry workshop held during the 2019 AMLI annual meeting. Results One hundred and seventy-nine (n = 179) responses were obtained where a significant number were clinical laboratory scientists (46%), laboratory directors (24%), supervisors (13%) or others (17%). A majority of respondents agreed on the need to standardize nomenclature and reporting of HEp-2 IFA results. About 55% were aware of the ICAP initiative; however, among those aware, a significant majority thought its guidance on HEp-2 IFA nomenclature and reporting is of value to clinical laboratories. To improve ICAP awareness and further enhance HEp-2 IFA assessment, increased collaboration between ICAP and the clinical laboratory community was suggested with emphasis on education and availability of reference materials. Conclusions Based on these suggestions, future efforts to optimize HEp-2 IFA reading, interpretation and reporting would benefit from more hands-on training of laboratory personnel as well as continuous collaboration between professional organizations, in vitro diagnostic manufacturers and clinical laboratories.

clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine (cclm)

Assessment of antinuclear antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence assay: report from a survey by the American Association of Medical Laboratory Immunologists