Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBurska, Agata
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez-Carrio, Javier
dc.contributor.authorBiesen, Robert
dc.contributor.authorDik, Willem A.
dc.contributor.authorEloranta, Maija-Leena
dc.contributor.authorCavalli, Giulio
dc.contributor.authorVisser, Marianne
dc.contributor.authorBoumpas, Dimitrios T.
dc.contributor.authorBertsias, George
dc.contributor.authorWahren Herlenius, Marie Elisabeth
dc.contributor.authorRehwinkel, Jan
dc.contributor.authorFrémond, Marie-Louise
dc.contributor.authorCrow, Mary K.
dc.contributor.authorRonnblom, Lars
dc.contributor.authorConaghan, P.G.
dc.contributor.authorVersnel, Marjan
dc.contributor.authorVital, Ed
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-05T13:02:07Z
dc.date.available2023-10-05T13:02:07Z
dc.date.created2023-06-16T10:40:12Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.issn2056-5933
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3094532
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To systematically review the literature for assay methods that aim to evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway activation and to harmonise-related terminology. Methods: Three databases were searched for reports of IFN-I and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. Information about the performance metrics of assays measuring IFN-I and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. A EULAR task force panel assessed feasibility and developed consensus terminology. Results: Of 10 037 abstracts, 276 fulfilled eligibility criteria for data extraction. Some reported more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 276 papers generated data on 412 methods. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). Principles of each assay are summarised for content validity. Concurrent validity (correlation with other IFN assays) was presented for n=150/412 assays. Reliability data were variable and provided for 13 assays. Gene expression and immunoassays were considered most feasible. Consensus terminology to define different aspects of IFN-I research and practice was produced. Conclusions: Diverse methods have been reported as IFN-I assays and these differ in what elements or aspects of IFN-I pathway activation they measure and how. No ‘gold standard’ represents the entirety of the IFN pathway, some may not be specific for IFN-I. Data on reliability or comparing assays were limited, and feasibility is a challenge for many assays. Consensus terminology should improve consistency of reporting.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBMJen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleType I interferon pathway assays in studies of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consideren_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2023 the authorsen_US
dc.source.articlenumbere002876en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002876
dc.identifier.cristin2155204
dc.source.journalRMD Openen_US
dc.identifier.citationRMD Open. 2023, 9 (1), e002876.en_US
dc.source.volume9en_US
dc.source.issue1en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal