You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence response
Response to: ‘Can solid-phase assays replace immunofluorescence for ANA screening?’ by Bizzaro
  1. David S Pisetsky1,
  2. Diane M Spencer1,
  3. Peter E Lipsky2,
  4. Brad H Rovin3
  1. 1 Department of Medicine and Immunology, Duke University Medical Center and Medical Research Service, VA Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2 RILITE Research Institute, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
  3. 3 Division of Nephrology, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr David S Pisetsky, Department of Medicine and Immunology, Duke University Medical Center and Medical Research Service, VA Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, USA; david.pisetsky{at}duke.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214829

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    We would like to thank Dr Bizzaro for his commentary1 on our article2 on the variability of testing for antinuclear antibodies (ANA) by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF). Along with other letters that have been published in response to our article,3–9 Dr Bizzaro’s letter highlights the concerns about the IIF, its status as the ‘gold standard’ and the availability of other technologies (eg, solid phase assays) that …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Copyright information:

    © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

    Linked Articles