Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 32816

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : June | Volume : 16 | Issue : 6 | Page : BC17 - BC22 Full Version

Comparative Analysis of Line Immunoassay with Immunofluorescence Assay for the Identification of Autoantibodies in Patients with Suspected Systemic Autoimmune Disorders: A Cross-sectional Study

Published: June 1, 2022 | DOI:
Jaspreet Kaur, Jaswinder Singh

1. Senior Research Scientist, Department of Biochemistry, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India. 2. Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Correspondence Address :
Jaswinder Singh,
Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.


Introduction: Systemic Autoimmune Diseases (SAD) are the diseases, including Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), sjogren’s syndrome, polymyositis, dermatomyositis, etc. where multiple organs are involved in the presence of a large variety of autoantibodies directed against one’s own immune system at various levels. They are one of the major causes of death and disability in all age groups and are characterized by the presence of Antinuclear Antibodies (ANA) in the blood of patients.

Aim: To comparatively evaluate the utility of Line Immunoassay (LIA) with Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay (IIFA) for the detection and identification of ANA in suspected SAD patients.

Materials and Methods: The present observational, cross-sectional study was conducted on the collected samples of 560 clinically suspected SAD patients attending the Outpatient and Inpatient Departments (Medicine, Paediatrics, Orthopaedics, Dermatology and General Surgery) at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India (tertiary care hospital), from March 2016 to March 2020. Samples were subjected to ANA testing by IIFA and LIA. All variables anti-dsDNA, anti-Smd1, SSA/Ro and U1 SnRNP, SSA/Ro, anti Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen (PCNA) and PO/RPP, SSB/La, anti CENP-B, Scl70, AMA-M2 and Mi-2 included in the study were presented in the form of percentages. Performance of LIA was reported in terms of sensitivity and specificity at 95% confidence interval. Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) for windows.

Results: Samples of both male (n=229) and female (n=331) patient of age group ranging from 0-90 years with mean age of 38.2 years were studied. Out of 560 samples, 197 (35.17%) patients were found to be ANA positive by IIFA. The LIA was positive in 175 (31.25%) patients. Of these 175 positive patients, 92 (52.57%) had a recognised autoimmune disease with the most common diagnosis was SLE, found in 38 (41.30%). In comparison to IIFA the sensitivity and specificity of LIA was found to be 82.13% and 98.62% respectively with 92.63% accuracy.

Conclusion: The combined analysis of IIFA and LIA can be very useful for rapid identification of ANA which strengthen the initiation of treatment at the earliest to reduce disease morbidity and mortality.


Antinuclear antibodies, Autoimmunity, Rheumatic diseases, Sjogren’s syndrome, Systemic lupus erythematosus

Autoimmune diseases are a group of diseases where there is an underlying tissue injury due to breakdown mechanism regulating immune tolerance resulting in own tissue damage. Autoimmune diseases are further categorized into those affecting specific organ like Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and grave’s disease and Systemic Autoimmune Diseases (SAD) like Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Rheumatoid arthritis and Sjogren’s syndrome (1). Antinuclear Antibodies (ANA) are a group of autoantibodies produced by a person’s immune system when it fails to distinguish between “self” and “nonself” which can lead to autoimmune diseases. Autoimmune diseases are one of the most important non-communicable dis¬eases affecting 8.5% of the population worldwide (2). It affects people of all genders, races and ages but certain people have an increased risk of developing this condition (3).

Even as the numbers are increasing, SAD often remain undiagnosed and untreated particularly in the developing countries as they mostly present with vague symptoms and patient often presents late to the physician and for physician also there is always a diagnostic dilemma. Diagnosis of SAD is often challenging and depends upon factors like clinical history, physical examination, and serological testing for detection of specific autoantibodies (4). The ANA test is one of the primary tests to diagnose a clinically suspected SAD but a significant number of patients with non-rheumatic conditions, such as chronic hepatic diseases, neoplasia, as well as active infections like tuberculosis, malaria, and even healthy individuals may be positive for ANA, especially at low levels (5). The most commonly used technique (gold standard) for the detection of ANA is the Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay (IIFA) on HEp-2 cells (6),(7). Although IIFA is an excellent screening test in expert hands its main drawback is that it does not allow the specific identification of these autoantibodies, hence the disease. So additional testing is required, employing techniques such as immunoprecipitation in agar, western immunoblotting, Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) (7),(8),(9). These techniques allow the identification of single autoantibody in a single test again limiting the scope of diagnosis.

The human Line Immunoassays (LIAs) were developed as a confirmatory test for rapid autoantibody profiling with greater sensitivity and specificity (10),(11),(12). The LIA is easy to perform and interpret and gives the results within 2 hrs (11).

The aim of the present study was to comparatively evaluate the utility of Line Immunoassay (LIA) with Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay (IIFA) for the detection and identification of ANA in suspected SAD patients.

Material and Methods

The present observational, cross-sectional study was conducted on the collected samples of 560 clinically suspected SAD patients attending the Outpatient and Inpatient Departments (Medicine, Paediatrics, Orthopaedics, Dermatology and General Surgery) at Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India (tertiary care hospital), from March 2016 to March 2020. Clinically suspected SAD patients were advised for IIFA and LIA for confirmation which is a routine investigation. Ethical approval was not needed for the current study as all samples were received for diagnosis and implied consent was there.

Inclusion criteria: All the samples received during above mentioned duration were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients having any infectious disease and trauma were excluded from the study.


Total 560 patients were included in the study. A 2 mL of blood was collected in a BD Vacutainer® (Cat. No. 367812) from each patient and referred to the Central Research Laboratory of the Department of Biochemistry for ANA testing.

Serum extraction: After receiving blood sample, serum was separated using the standard protocol of the laboratory. Serum was stored at -20oC for further analysis. Repeated freeze/thawing was avoided. Samples and kit reagents were brought to room temperature 30 minutes before procedure (10).

Indirect immunofluorescence assay: The IIFA was done using The Immuno Concepts Hep-2000 ANA Test System (Cat No. 2140G-Ro) as per manufacturer’s instructions. It is an advanced immunofluorescent system with transfected mitotic Human Epithelioid cells (HEp-2) for detection of ANA. The HEp-2 cells with mitotic figures have been shown to have increased sensitivity with more acute pattern than classical mouse kidney substrate in detecting antibodies in Progressive Systemic Sclerosis (PSS) (13).

Briefly, serum was diluted using diluent in 1:80 ratio. A 30 μL of the diluted serum was then put on each well on the slide and incubated at room temperature for 30 min. Then the slide (wells) was washed carefully with saline Phosphate Buffer Solution (PBS) to remove the unbound antibodies. Fluorescein Isothiocyanate (FITC) conjugate (anti-human IgG conjugated to FITC) was added to wells, to get bound to the antibodies and emit fluorescence. The FITC was again washed off carefully with PBS (in dark) for 10 min, to remove the unbound conjugate. In the last step, the wells were then mounted using mounting medium. Fluorescence microscope at 40X was used for visualization of the slides. The samples were graded (+, ++, +++) and negative based on the fluorescent intensity (10). Positive and Negative controls were run with each test.

If nuclear staining was less than or equal to the negative control with no clear pattern a sample was considered negative for ANA. The cytoplasm may sometimes demonstrate weak staining, with brighter staining of the non chromosomal region of mitotic cells with no conclusive pattern.

A serum was considered positive if a clear pattern of staining in a majority of the interphase cells in the nucleus was found. A bright apple green fluorescence in the nuclei of the cells is found in positive sample, with a clearly discriminating pattern characteristic of the control serum that was used (10).

Autoantibody detection with LIA: The serum samples were further processed with LIA using IMTEC-ANALIA MAXX kit (Cat. No. ITC92005). To perform LIA, nitro cellulose strips (orange colour coding) coated with 17 highly purified antigens (Table/Fig 1) as discrete lines were used along with two control bands (functional control and cut-off control). The detection of autoantibody is based both on the presence of functional and cutoff control. The test results are valid if intensity of functional control is greater than cutoff control.

The test was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Briefly, serum was diluted using dilution buffer in 1:100 and left on the horizontal shaker for 30 min. After this, 3 × washing was done with the wash solution for 5 min each. This was then followed by adding conjugate to the strip and left on the horizontal shaker for 30 min. Again, the washing step was repeated. To the washed strip, substrate was added and left for 10 min. Afterwards, the reaction was stopped by adding stop solution for 5 min. Then the strips were dried and evaluated. The test results were valid if functional and cut-off controls are visible and intensity of functional control was greater than cut-off control. The test result was negative, if no band was seen or seen with lower intensity in comparison to the cut-off control. The test was equivocal, if the intensity of the band was same as the cut-off control. The test result was positive, if a band exhibits a stronger intensity than cut-off control. Based on the color intensity, samples were graded (+, ++, +++) (Table/Fig 2) (10).

Statistical Analysis

Performance of LIA was reported in terms of sensitivity and specificity at 95% confidence interval. All variables included in the study were presented in the form of percentage. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 (Chicago, IL, USA) for windows.


A total of 560 samples of, North Indian population of Rohilkhand region, which were clinically suspected of SAD were put to confirmation of disease. Samples of both male (n=229) and female (n=331) patient of age group ranging from 0-90 years with mean age of 38.2 years were tabulated in the different age groups to have better understanding of disease pattern.

Out of 560 samples, 197 (35.17%) were found to be IIFA positive and 363 (64.82%) were found to be IIFA negative. Using LIA, out of 560 samples 175 (31.25%) patients were found to be ANA positive, while remaining 385 (68.75%) were ANA negative (Table/Fig 3). Comparing with IIFA (gold standard) the sensitivity and specificity of LIA was found to be 82.13% and 98.62% respectively (Table/Fig 4).

When samples were analyzed in terms of gender, the female to male positive ratio was found to be 2.13:1 with total 119 positive females and 56 positive males (Table/Fig 5). In terms of age groups, it was found that the positivity rate was maximum in the patients of 21-30 years age group followed closely by 31-40 years age group. Furthermore, maximum positive females were also found in 21-30 years age group (Table/Fig 5).

Of these 175 positive ANA patients, 92 (52.57%) had a recognised autoimmune disorder while 83 (47.42%) did not. In 92 autoimmune disease patients, 66 (71.73%) were highly positive, 3 (3.26%) were moderate positive, 7 (7.60%) were low positive and 16 (17.39%) were mixed (having +3, +2 and +1 intensities) (Table/Fig 6). The most common diagnosis was SLE, followed by MCTD, scleroderma, sjogren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, dermatomyositis, Primary Biliary Cirrhosis (PBC), polymyositis, myositis and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) (Table/Fig 6).

Among 83 non autoimmune disease patients, 34 (40.96%) were highly positive, 2 (2.40%) were moderate positive, 41 (49.39%) were low positive and 6 (7.22%) were mixed (Table/Fig 7). Among these patients, pain, weakness and fever were the most common complaints (Table/Fig 7).

Furthermore, of the 38 SLE patients with a positive ANA profile, 23 (60.52%) had positive anti-dsDNA, 22 (57.89%) had positive anti-Smd1, 14 (36.84%) had positive anti SSA/Ro 60 kD and U1 SnRNP, 13 (34.21%) had positive anti-histone and nucleosome, 12 (31.57%) had positive SSA/Ro 52 kD, 10 (26.31%) had positive anti Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen (PCNA) and PO/RPP, 7 (18.42%) had positive SSB/La, 1 (2.63%) had positive for anti CENP-B, Scl70, AMA-M2, and Mi-2. Occurrence of different autoantibodies in other autoimmune diseases was shown in (Table/Fig 8). Furthermore, distribution of different autoantibodies in non autoimmune disease patients was shown in (Table/Fig 9).


Systemic autoimmune diseases are characterized by autoantibody patterns found in patient sera. The presence of ANA is critical for establishing the diagnosis of systemic autoimmune disorders and ANA are one of the most frequently ordered tests for this. Despite its high sensitivity and low specificity, screening for ANA is widely performed by IIF on HEp-2 cells as a first level screening test (6),(7). In IIFA positive fluorescence detects the presence of ANA but does not assist in confirmation of these autoantibodies and hence the disease. In recent years the ANA profiling has become widely used not only for evaluation but also in screening for autoimmune disorders despite its relatively high cost compared to the cost of the ANA test only. Because a characteristic profile of ANA is associated with different autoimmune diseases, identification of the fine specificity may provide valuable clues to the diagnosis. The LIA was developed as a confirmatory test for rapid autoantibody profiling (10),(11),(14),(15). The LIA is easy to perform and interpret with high sensitivity and specificity (10),(11),(14),(15),(16). It detects a group of autoantibodies related to SAD like SLE, systemic sclerosis/scleroderma (SSc), undifferentiated connective tissue diseases or MCTD, dermatomyositis/polymyositis, sjogren’s syndrome (SS/SjS) (10),(11),(17).

A total of 560 samples of clinically suspected cases of SAD were included in the study. ANA detection was done by IIFA and LIA. Out of 560 samples, 197 (35.17%) were found to be IIFA positive. Using LIA, out of 560 samples, 175 (31.25%) patients were positive with ANA in their serum which is in concordance with other similar studies (10),(11),(14). Among positive ANA patients, 92 (52.57%) were showing autoimmune diseases while 83 (47.43%) were not showing identifiable autoimmune conditions. The significance of a positive ANA test in clinically suspected autoimmune disease patients has been well established (18). However, positive ANA test in non autoimmune disease patients is the result of various infections, drug therapies and haematological disorders (19).

Females (68%) were most commonly affected. The proportion of females getting affected with autoimmune diseases were high and the ratio of female: male was found to be 2.13:1. Gunnarsson R et al., (Norway) report a similar female predominance with a female: male ratio of 3:1 (20). The age group between 21-30 years had the maximum number of patients (38.71%), which is in concordance with other similar studies by Angel J et al., and Greidinger EL (17),(21). Autoimmune diseases most often strike women of 20-50 years because of endocrinological changes due to puberty, pregnancy and menopause. These endocrinological changes occurring during various phases of women affect immune system due to untoward interaction between innate and adaptive immunity with fluctuating hormonal level in women with the release of pro and anti-inflammatory cytokines and hence making women more susceptible to autoimmune diseases (22),(23).

The most common SAD in the present study was SLE with a prevalence rate of 41% that is similar to the study of Angel J et al., (17). Among SLE autoantibodies, antibodies to dsDNA (60.52%) were frequently found followed by antibodies to SmD1 (57.89%), SS-A/Ro60 kD and U1Sn-RNP (36.84%), nucleosome and histone (34.21%), SS-A/Ro52 kD (31.57%), PCNA and PO (RPP) (26.31%) and SS-B/La (18.42%). Anti-dsDNA antibodies have been shown to correlate with disease activity and specific organ damage (24). It was also included in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, 1997 for the classification of SLE together with anti-Sm, antiphospholipid (anti-PL) antibodies, and ANA. Antibodies to SmD1 are considered a highly specific marker for SLE and are reported in 30-40% of these patients (25). The present study data with SLE show a higher frequency of positivity to SmD1 (57.89%). Anti-RNP antibodies are noted in 40-50% of SLE patients but a very high titre of anti-RNP antibodies alone is highly characteristic of mixed connective tissue disease (25). The present study results confirmed the previous finding of Didier K et al., by showing 100% positivity of anti-RNP antibodies in suspected mixed connective tissue disease patients (25). Antibodies to SS-A/Ro were present in all suspected sjogren’s syndrome patients while earlier study showed that SS-A/Ro antibodies have been found in approximately 60-95% of patients with sjogren’s syndrome and only 25-40% of SLE patients (25). Patients with scleroderma tend to have antibodies to Scl-70, whereas anticentromere is noted with limited scleroderma (CREST syndrome) (25). The present study data showed only 18% of anti Scl-70 and anti CENP-B antibodies, a highly specific marker for scleroderma were present in suspected scleroderma patients.


A very limited data on SAD diagnosis via IIFA and LIA is available in north Indian population particularly of the Rohilkhand region and the lesser frequency of test (560 samples in 4 years) again limits the research. Although LIA is very good diagnostic test but it has the limitation to diagnose only 17 most common autoantibodies and we may be missing the other antibodies altogether.


The sensitivity and specificity of LIA was found to be 82.13% and 98.62% respectively. The IIFA and LIA are useful diagnostic tools having good sensitivity and specificity and can be used for screening and prognostic purposes respectively. Burden of disease in female of child bearing age group (21-35 years) is significant and needs early diagnosis and treatment. Authors have useful diagnostic tests in the form of LIA and IIFA which should be available at primary and secondary care levels to help patient get the diagnosis and treatment at the earliest.


The authors thank Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences Trust, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, for providing the platform for this research work. Authors also thank Dr. Sonam Maheshwari, Statistician/Assistant Professor, Department of Community Medicine, Government Medical College, Dehradun for the statistical analysis.


Angel J, Thomas M, Appalaraju B. Evaluation of ELISA and indirect Immunofluorescence in the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases and their interpretation in the clinical situation. J Acad Clin Microbiol. 2015;17:07-11. [crossref]
Cooper GS, Bynum ML, Somers EC. Recent insights in the epidemiology of autoimmune diseases: Improved prevalence estimates and understanding of clustering of diseases. J Autoimmu. 2009;33:197-07. [crossref] [PubMed]
Ngo ST, Steyn FJ, McCombe PA. Gender differences in autoimmune disease. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2014;35:347-69. [crossref] [PubMed]
Stamouli M, Skliris A, Reppa D, Maganaki E, Totos G. Detection of antinuclear antibodies (ANA), antibodies to double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) and antibodies to extractable nuclear antigens (anti-ENA) in Greek patients. Clin Lab. 2013;59:283-91. [crossref] [PubMed]
Von Mühlen CA, Tan EM. Autoantibodies in the diagnosis of systemic rheumatic diseases. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1982;24:323-58. [crossref]
Meroni PL, Schur PH. ANA screening: an old test with new recommendations. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:1420-22. [crossref] [PubMed]
Buchner C, Bryant C, Eslami A, Lakos G. Anti-Nuclear Antibody Screening Using HEp-2 Cells. J Vis Exp. 2014;88:51211-19. [crossref] [PubMed]
Tan EM, Smolen JS, Mc Dougal JS, Butcher BT, Conn D, Dawkins R, et al. A critical evaluation of enzyme immunoassays for detection of antinuclear antibodies of defined specificities. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:455-64. 3.0.CO;2-3>[crossref]
Meheus L, Van Venrooij WJ, Wiik A, Charles PJ, Tzioufas AG, Meyer O, et al. Determination of the fine specificity of antinuclear antibodies in connective tissue diseases using a multiparameter line immunoassay (LIA) based on recombinant proteins. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1999;17:205-14.
Begum J, Shailaja VV and Rao R. Detection of Sensitivity and Specificity of Line Immuno Assay in Comparison with Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay for the Detection of Anti-Nuclear Antibodies in Diagnosis of Systemic Autoimmune Disorders. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2018;7(11):743-48. [crossref]
Raman S, Adhya AK, Pradhan PK, Dash K, Senapati U. Correlation of Indirect Immunofluorescence & Line Immunoassay Method in Detection of Autoimmune Diseases: an Observational Study at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital. Sch J App Med Sci. 2017;5(7A):2520-26.
Jang J, Kim S, Kim H, Lee K, Park J, Park Y. Comparison of antinuclear antibody profiles obtained using line immunoassay and fluorescence enzyme immunoassay. J Int Med Res. 2021;49(6):01-11. [crossref] [PubMed]
Tan EM, Rodnan GP, Garcia I, et al. Diversity of Antinuclear Antibodies in Progressive Systemic Sclerosis. Arthritis Rheum. 1980;23:617-25. [crossref] [PubMed]
Boorgula SY, Lakshmi GJ. A comparative study of immunofluorescence pattern and line immune assay profile in the detection of the antinuclear antibodies. J NTR Univ Health Sci. 2020;9(4):222-29. [crossref]
Sebastian W, Roy A, Kini U, Mullick S. Correlation of antinuclear antibody immunofluorescence patterns with immune profile using line immunoassay in the Indian scenario. Ind J Pathol Microbiol. 2010;53(3):427-32. [crossref] [PubMed]
Bommala ML and Bilolikar AK. Detection of antinuclear antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence method and its comparison with line immunoassay in a tertiary care hospital: A laboratory based observational study. J Med Sci Res. 2014; 2(4):194-99. [crossref]
Angel J, Thomas M, Jayarajan J. Prevalence, Characterisation and Diagnosis of Common Connective Tissue Diseases from Coimbatore Region in Tamil Nadu. J Clin Diagn Res. 2018;12(6):21-24. [crossref]
Satoh M, Mercado MV, Chan EKL. Clinical interpretation of antinuclear antibody tests in systemic rheumatic diseases. Mod Rheumatol. 2009;19:219-28. [crossref] [PubMed]
Grygiel-Górniak B, Rogacka N, Puszczewicz M. Antinuclear antibodies in healthy people and non-rheumatic diseases- diagnostic and clinical implications. Reumatol. 2018;56:243-48. [crossref] [PubMed]
Gunnarsson R, Molberg O, Gilboe IM, Gran JT. PAHNOR 1 study group. The prevalence and incidence of mixed connective tissue disease: a national multicentre survey of Norwegian patients. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(6):1047-51. [crossref] [PubMed]
Greidinger EL. Mixed Connective-Tissue Disease. Medscape. Sep 29,2017.Available from:
Desai MK, Brinton RD. Autoimmune Disease in Women: Endocrine Transition and Risk Across the Lifespan. Front Endocrinol. 2019;10:01-19. [crossref] [PubMed]
Prem Kumar B, Srinivasa Murthy M, Rajagopal K, Nagaprabu VN, Sree Madhuri P. Epidemiology of Autoimmune Disorders with Special Reference to Rheumatoid Arthritis from a Tertiary Care Center. Ind J Pharm Pract. 2014;7:50-60. [crossref]
Rekvig OP. Anti-dsDNA antibodies as a classification criterion and a diagnostic marker for systemic lupus erythematosus: critical remarks. Clin Exp Immunol. 2015;179:05-10. [crossref] [PubMed]
Didier K, Bolko L, Giusti D, Toquet S, Robbins A, Antonicelli F et al. Autoantibodies Associated with Connective Tissue Diseases: what Meaning for Clinicians? Front Immunol. 2018;9:01-20. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/53126.16448

Date of Submission: Nov 03, 2021
Date of Peer Review: Jan 13, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Mar 28, 2022
Date of Publishing: Jun 01, 2022

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

• Plagiarism X-checker: Nov 07, 2021
• Manual Googling: Mar 26, 2022
• iThenticate Software: May 28, 2022 (23%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)