Vis enkel innførsel

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


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal