Limited reliability of the indirect immunofluorescence technique for the detection of anti-Rib-P antibodies

Table 1 Sensitivity of LIA, ELISA, EliA^® Rib-P, IB, and IIF versus ALBIA

		All	Medium^a + high MFU	Only high^b MFU
		n = 51	n = 27	n = 20
LIA	Positive + borderline, number (percentage)	19 (37.3)	9 (33.3)	7 (35.0)
	Positive, number (percentage)	13 (25.5)	8 (29.6)	7 (35.0)
ELISA	Positive + borderline, number (percentage)	36 (70.6)	21 (77.8)	14 (70.0)
	Positive, number (percentage)	27 (52.9)	17 (63.0)	12 (60.0)
EliA^®	Positive + borderline, number (percentage)	22 (43.1)	12 (44.4)	8 (40.0)
	Positive, number (percentage)	21 (41.2)	11 (40.7)	8 (40.0)
IIF (CSP)	Positive, number (percentage)	14 (27.5)	11 (40.7)	8 (40.0)
IB	At least one Rib-P band, number (percentage)	20 (39.2)	10 (37.0)	7 (35.0)

^aMedium 50 to 100 median fluorescence units (MFU); ^bhigh ≥ 100 MFU. ALBIA, addressable laser bead immunoassay; CSP, cytoplasmic staining pattern; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IB, immunoblot; IIF, indirect immunofluorescence; LIA, line immunoassay; Rib-P, ribosomal P protein.

ISSN: 1478-6362