Rheumatology Advance Access published online on September 23, 2009
Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kep299
© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Comment on: Clinical utility of ANA measured by ELISA compared with ANA measured by immunofluorescence
1Rheumatology Unit/AIR and 2Clinical Immunology Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Correspondence to:
Thomas Skogh, Rheumatology Unit/AIR, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. E-mail: thomas.skogh@lio.se
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
SIR, We read with interest the recently published study by Maguire et al. [1] on the clinical utility of ANA testing in a real-world rheumatology setting. By comparing IIF microscopy with ELISA, they reached the conclusion that ELISA is the preferable method. This subject has been