Talk:Antinuclear antibody

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merger with Antinuclear antibodies page

Both pages appear to be on the same topic, but this page seems more recent and more complete. Snowy150 (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I merged it to here. Feel free to complement from that article's history if you think I forgot anything important. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17 July 2007: It appears some of the content on this page has been plagiarized from this site: http://www.medicinenet.com/antinuclear_antibody/article.htm

History of High and Normal ANA Levels

I have a History of both High and Normal ANA Levels, and I found the Compounds that raise my ANA Level, in Medications and Foods and some Bacteria and Fungi, and made my ANA Level Normal to stop the pain. I need a peer review of my findings on my talk page, we may be able to lower other People/s ANA Level to stop the pain. Stopping taking Medications is the only way to stop the pain and Lower the ANA Level, because all of their pains Medications and Antibiotics and most of the other classes of Medications, contain Inert Ingredients that raise my ANA Level, causing the Immune System to destroy many different parts of my Body that show up on CAT Scans and X-rays and Urine Tests afterwards. JosephLoegering (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a pre-test probability

To interpret an ANA, you need a decent pre-test probability: doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.09.014 JFW | T@lk 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacob, I have very recently done a lot of work on this ANA article here I am going to upload it to the main ANA article this week so I will add something about this into what I have already done. Simon Caulton (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flubbed definition/statistics?

When reading the Anti-Sm sectioned this sentence stood out to me: "Approximately 99% of individuals with anti-Sm antibodies have the disease, but only 20% of people with SLE have the antibodies." I'm guessing that this is attempting to put specificity and sensitivity in laymen's terms, in which case the second half of the sentence is correct but the first half is dead wrong. Assuming a sensitivity of 20%, a specificity of 99% and a prevalence of SLE of 50 per 100 000, that gives us about 1% probability that a random individual with anti-Sm antibodies actually have SLE. See also positive and negative predictive values. I changed the wording the better reflect what specificity actually is --kissekatt (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot! That was my fLub :S Simon Caulton (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANA not strictly nuclear

Current lab reports include the term 'AC - pattern': Anti-Cellular pattern. The idea being that the antibodies not only target nuclear material, but also cytoplasmic components. However I don't read anything about this in the article; somebody know more about this? 2A02:1812:1601:A300:198D:2E3A:6768:FB48 (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]