Table 1 Comparison between the standard indirect immunofluorescence method and electrochemical sensor for ANA measurement
From: The universe of ANA testing: a case for point-of-care ANA testing
Feature | Indirect immunofluorescence | Electrochemical sensor |
|---|---|---|
Cost | ||
 Equipment | Costly fluorescence microscope, infrastructure | Low cost |
 Individual test | Low–moderate cost | Low cost |
Access to providers | Off-site clinical laboratory | Point-of care |
Operator expertise | Substantial training needed | Simple to operate |
Readout and interpretation | Subjective signal intensity and pattern | Objective continuous digital scale output |
Assay time | Substantial processing time (~3Â h) | Near real-time data (~20Â min) |
Result report | Semi-quantitative + pattern | Quantitative; no pattern |
Methodology logistics | ||
 Steps | Multiple manipulations | Single-step measurement |
 Sample autonomy | Usually run in sample batches | Single sample per run |
 Equipment re-use | No restrictions | Requires cleaning |
Antigen substrate | ||
 Antigenic complexity | Fairly comprehensive | More limited |
 Potential for improvement | None | Readily enhanced at additional cost |
 Clinical false positives due to DFS70 | Present | Absent |
 Control for non-specific binding | None | Blank substrate |