The Experts below are selected from a list of 2931 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Allan Wiik - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Standardisation in Clinical Laboratory medicine: an ethical reflection.
Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2008Co-Authors: Xavier Bossuyt, Céline Louche, Allan WiikAbstract:Many efforts have been undertaken to standardise diagnostic tests. For example, the introduction of CRM-470, an international reference preparation for proteins in human serum1 has reduced the among-Laboratory variance of protein quantification.2 (The examples provided are from the field of Clinical Laboratory Immunology and Protein Chemistry.) The Dutch Red Cross Institute together with the World Health Organization (WHO) prepared an international standard for quantification of antibodies to double-stranded DNA.3 The International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS), together with the American Arthritis Foundation and the Centers of Disease Control (CDC), made available reference sera selected by the International Committee on Autoantibody Testing in Rheumatic Diseases and Related Disorders for detecting anti-nuclear antibodies.4 These initiatives improved worldwide harmonisation of Laboratory test results. However, despite efforts to harmonise Laboratory tests, reference reagents are still lacking for many tests. For example, standardisation is unsatisfactory for IgG subclass determination.5 A number of promising new Laboratory tests have recently become available, such as the determination of antibodies to (a) tissue transglutaminase, (b) Saccharomyces cerevisiae and (c) (cyclic) citrullinated peptides (CCP) and proteins (anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)). These tests have been introduced without standardisation.6–8 Results obtained in different laboratories or in different Clinical studies are not interchangeable, which impairs evidence-based medicine. In spite of this, there are encouraging initiatives, as more reference reagents are being prepared at this moment.9 A new reference reagent for anti-CCP antibody quantification is being prepared by the IUIS Autoantibody Standardization Committee. If the material is appropriate, it will become available as a standard through CDC. New reagents for standardisation of proteinase 3 anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies (ANCA) and myeloperoxidase ANCA have recently been made ready for use through CDC The implementation of standards lags behind the development and implementation of new technologies.10 This …
-
Standardisation in Clinical Laboratory medicine: an ethical reflection
2008Co-Authors: Xavier Bossuyt, Céline Louche, Allan WiikAbstract:Many efforts have been undertaken to standardise diagnostic tests. For example, the introduction of CRM-470, an international reference preparation for proteins in human serum1 has reduced the among-Laboratory variance of protein quantification. (The examples provided are from the field of Clinical Laboratory Immunology and Protein Chemistry.) The Dutch Red Cross Institute together with the World Health Organization (WHO) prepared an international standard for quantification of antibodies to double-stranded DNA. The International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS), together with the American Arthritis Foundation and the Centers of Disease Control (CDC), made available reference sera selected by the International Committee on Autoantibody Testing in Rheumatic Diseases and Related Disorders for detecting anti-nuclear antibodies. These initiatives improved worldwide harmonisation of Laboratory test results. However, despite efforts to harmonise Laboratory tests, reference reagents are still lacking for many tests. For example, standardisation is unsatisfactory for IgG subclass determination. A number of promising new Laboratory tests have recently become available, such as the determination of antibodies to (a) tissue transglutaminase, (b) Saccharomyces cerevisiae and (c) (cyclic) citrullinated peptides (CCP) and proteins (anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)). These tests have been introduced without standardisation. Results obtained in different laboratories or in different Clinical studies are not interchangeable, which impairs evidence-based medicine. In spite of this, there are encouraging initiatives, as more reference reagents are being prepared at this moment. A new reference reagent for anti-CCP antibody quantification is being prepared by the IUIS Autoantibody Standardization Committee. If the material is appropriate, it will become available as a standard through CDC. New reagents for standardisation of proteinase 3 anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies (ANCA) and myeloperoxidase ANCA have recently been made ready for use through CDC.
Xavier Bossuyt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Standardisation in Clinical Laboratory medicine: an ethical reflection.
Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2008Co-Authors: Xavier Bossuyt, Céline Louche, Allan WiikAbstract:Many efforts have been undertaken to standardise diagnostic tests. For example, the introduction of CRM-470, an international reference preparation for proteins in human serum1 has reduced the among-Laboratory variance of protein quantification.2 (The examples provided are from the field of Clinical Laboratory Immunology and Protein Chemistry.) The Dutch Red Cross Institute together with the World Health Organization (WHO) prepared an international standard for quantification of antibodies to double-stranded DNA.3 The International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS), together with the American Arthritis Foundation and the Centers of Disease Control (CDC), made available reference sera selected by the International Committee on Autoantibody Testing in Rheumatic Diseases and Related Disorders for detecting anti-nuclear antibodies.4 These initiatives improved worldwide harmonisation of Laboratory test results. However, despite efforts to harmonise Laboratory tests, reference reagents are still lacking for many tests. For example, standardisation is unsatisfactory for IgG subclass determination.5 A number of promising new Laboratory tests have recently become available, such as the determination of antibodies to (a) tissue transglutaminase, (b) Saccharomyces cerevisiae and (c) (cyclic) citrullinated peptides (CCP) and proteins (anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)). These tests have been introduced without standardisation.6–8 Results obtained in different laboratories or in different Clinical studies are not interchangeable, which impairs evidence-based medicine. In spite of this, there are encouraging initiatives, as more reference reagents are being prepared at this moment.9 A new reference reagent for anti-CCP antibody quantification is being prepared by the IUIS Autoantibody Standardization Committee. If the material is appropriate, it will become available as a standard through CDC. New reagents for standardisation of proteinase 3 anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies (ANCA) and myeloperoxidase ANCA have recently been made ready for use through CDC The implementation of standards lags behind the development and implementation of new technologies.10 This …
-
Standardisation in Clinical Laboratory medicine: an ethical reflection
2008Co-Authors: Xavier Bossuyt, Céline Louche, Allan WiikAbstract:Many efforts have been undertaken to standardise diagnostic tests. For example, the introduction of CRM-470, an international reference preparation for proteins in human serum1 has reduced the among-Laboratory variance of protein quantification. (The examples provided are from the field of Clinical Laboratory Immunology and Protein Chemistry.) The Dutch Red Cross Institute together with the World Health Organization (WHO) prepared an international standard for quantification of antibodies to double-stranded DNA. The International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS), together with the American Arthritis Foundation and the Centers of Disease Control (CDC), made available reference sera selected by the International Committee on Autoantibody Testing in Rheumatic Diseases and Related Disorders for detecting anti-nuclear antibodies. These initiatives improved worldwide harmonisation of Laboratory test results. However, despite efforts to harmonise Laboratory tests, reference reagents are still lacking for many tests. For example, standardisation is unsatisfactory for IgG subclass determination. A number of promising new Laboratory tests have recently become available, such as the determination of antibodies to (a) tissue transglutaminase, (b) Saccharomyces cerevisiae and (c) (cyclic) citrullinated peptides (CCP) and proteins (anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)). These tests have been introduced without standardisation. Results obtained in different laboratories or in different Clinical studies are not interchangeable, which impairs evidence-based medicine. In spite of this, there are encouraging initiatives, as more reference reagents are being prepared at this moment. A new reference reagent for anti-CCP antibody quantification is being prepared by the IUIS Autoantibody Standardization Committee. If the material is appropriate, it will become available as a standard through CDC. New reagents for standardisation of proteinase 3 anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies (ANCA) and myeloperoxidase ANCA have recently been made ready for use through CDC.
Barbara Detrick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Manual of Molecular and Clinical Laboratory Immunology - Monitoring Autoimmune Reactivity within the Retina
Manual of Molecular and Clinical Laboratory Immunology, 2016Co-Authors: John J. Hooks, Chi-chao Chan, H. Nida Sen, Robert B. Nussenblatt, Barbara DetrickAbstract:This chapter deals with the identification of antiretinal immune reactivity in patients with retinal diseases. An extraordinary feature of the eye is its immune status. The immune response that occurs within the eye is different from the systemic immune response, and this unique characteristic has been referred to as immune privilege. Retinal autoimmunity exists as a naturally occurring disease in humans and as an experimentally designed animal model system. Sympathetic ophthalmia (SO) is an ocular inflammatory (autoimmune) disease that occurs after a perforating injury to one eye. Cancer-associated retinopathy (CAR) is most commonly associated with small-cell carcinoma of the lung, but it has also been reported for patients with breast, endometrial, and other cancers. Posterior ocular onchocerciasis is characterized by atrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), and as lesions advance, subretinal fibrosis occurs. Toxoplasmosis, which occurs in over 500 million humans worldwide, is caused by the obligate intracellular parasite Toxoplasma gondii. T. gondii is also the most frequently identified infectious agent in posterior uveitis, and Toxoplasma retinochoroiditis is an important cause of blindness in young adults. Measurement of antiretinal immune reactivity is difficult to perform in the Clinical Laboratory. Analysis of immunocytochemical or immunofluorescent staining of retina tissue sections requires special training for interpretation.
-
Clinical Laboratory Immunology: An indispensable player in Laboratory medicine
American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2014Co-Authors: Anne E. Tebo, Maurice R.g. O'gorman, Barbara Detrick, John L Schmitz, Aaruni Khanolkar, Robert G. Hamilton, Roshini S AbrahamAbstract:Objectives: Clinical Laboratory Immunology affects practically every aspect of medicine. Accordingly, appropriately trained, board-certified Clinical Laboratory immunologists are key contributors to the diagnosis and management of patients with various immune-mediated conditions. This review highlights the availability of postdoctoral level training programs for Clinical Laboratory Immunology and identifies possible career tracks. Methods: Fundamental elements for doctoral level Clinical Laboratory immunologists are identified and the critical components of diagnostic Immunology training as well as career opportunities in and out of academia are described. Results: Relative to other disciplines in Laboratory medicine, little emphasis has been given to Clinical Laboratory Immunology in medical, graduate, and postgraduate training. Formal postgraduate fellowship programs and board certification examinations are available, yet there remains a significant lack of awareness in the medical education community about the value and necessity of training in this field. Conclusions: It is anticipated that sharing this knowledge will increase awareness of the discipline of Clinical Laboratory Immunology at the postdoctoral level with implications for the practice of Laboratory medicine.
-
manual of molecular and Clinical Laboratory Immunology
2006Co-Authors: Barbara Detrick, John L Schmitz, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Robert G. HamiltonAbstract:Manual of molecular and Clinical Laboratory Immunology / , Manual of molecular and Clinical Laboratory Immunology / , کتابخانه دیجیتالی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی و خدمات درمانی شهید بهشتی
-
manual of Clinical Laboratory Immunology
2002Co-Authors: Noel R Rose, Robert G. Hamilton, Barbara DetrickAbstract:Manual of Clinical Laboratory Immunology , Manual of Clinical Laboratory Immunology , مرکز فناوری اطلاعات و اطلاع رسانی کشاورزی
Christine Schütt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Taking Clinical Immunology into the 21st century
Trends in Immunology, 2002Co-Authors: Christine SchüttAbstract:Manual of Clinical Laboratory Immunology (Sixth Edition)edited by Noel R. Rose, Robert G. Hamilton and Barbara Detrick.N.R. Rose, together with E. Witebsky, discovered autoantibody formation in patients 42 years ago and published the first edition of this manual in 1976. Through the years the manual has become the ‘bible’ of Clinical Immunology.For the sixth edition, 240 acknowledged researchers have written in their area of expertise. The volume continues a long tradition of including the broad range of immunological procedures, even if they are conducted in a microbiology or Clinical chemistry Laboratory. It is a heavy book – 3.3 kg and 1348 pages. On one hand, the book targets readers without specialized knowledge of the whole battery of Clinical immunological test systems, and on the other hand it provides a valuable resource for experienced lab technicians, placing methods into a wider context.From agglutination assays to microarray technology, the book contains not only a description of the methods but also offers essentials, such as specimen collection and handling, troubleshooting guides and recent trends. The manual is easy to read and is arranged in three parts: (1) General Methods, (2) Immunologic Diagnosis and Monitoring of Disease and (3) Administration. Part 1 covers antibody based and molecular methods, concentrating on immunoglobulins, complement, cellular functions, phenotypes and genotypes of cells, soluble mediators, adhesion molecules and tissues. Part 2 covers the diagnosis of a wide range of infectious diseases, immunodeficiencies, allergic disorders, systemic and organ-localized autoimmune diseases, cancer and transplantation. Owing to the overwhelming number of subspecialties in Clinical Immunology the authors could not cover all Clinical situations or therapeutic manipulations. Thus, the practical guide of monitoring immunologic therapies contains only spotlights with rudimental scientific introductions, for example, chip technology in cancer diagnosis, tumor vaccines, or tumor antigen recognition by T cells. Here, like other biomedical textbooks, the manual suffers from being out of date by the time it has been published: the reader will find nothing on dendritic cells, for instance.In the past, Laboratory textbooks focused on the description of operational procedures. Today, however, Laboratory management is becoming more and more important because it has to create a framework in which test results are produced and communicated to the clinician. In a Clinical Immunology Laboratory the researcher has to aid the clinicians in selecting the essential test combinations and to assist in interpreting results. For this reason, and because of the participation in Clinical trials, the number of agencies with regulatory power has increased enormously over the past few years. In this regard the manual stands out from others in the field making a contribution to the improvement of Laboratory management: Part 3 covers quality assurance, planning statistical quality control procedures, cost effectiveness, accreditation, licensing and credentials. We must acknowledge the editors for including these aspects because in hospital laboratories today many government regulations and professional guidelines adsorb a massive amount of manpower. The book provides a list of website addresses, which help the reader to keep pace in this fast moving area. In general, this hardback manual should remain useful for some period of time.
John L. Fahey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Clinical Immunology Society: the Early Years 1984–1989
Journal of clinical immunology, 2011Co-Authors: John L. FaheyAbstract:The Clinical Immunology Society (CIS) developed in two broad contexts: (1) as a component of Immunology research and education with human relevance, and (2) as a component of Clinical medicine, i.e., disease identification, pathogenesis, treatment, and prevention. Indeed, a purpose of the CIS was to bring these two areas closer together. Initial goals included uniting the Clinical investigators from the wide array of Clinical fields and providing information on scientific and Clinical advances. There was also the intent to enhance the framing and scope of immune-based therapies. Conversations were initiated in 1984 to develop a society for bringing together the leadership of the many Clinical and Laboratory contexts of Clinical Immunology. From 1979 to 1984, I had been on the National Advisory Council for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), the senior advisory group to the NIAID, which met three times each year to review recommendations for research grant awards. In those years, I became acquainted, at least by name and field of interest, with almost all of the leading immunologists in the USA. Many I knew from my own research defining human andmurine immunoglobulins in the 1960s, Immunology and cancer studies in the 1970s, and description and characterization of AIDS in the 1980s. The discussions from 1984 to 1986 involved more than 50 immunologists in the USA (Table I) and with a dozen more from other countries. The leading relevant organizations were consulted. These included the American Association of Immunology (AAI), the NIH, especially the NIAID, and other health-related organizations. Initial discussions identified several individuals who became major partners in advancing this enterprise: Noel Rose, Gary Fathman, Max Cooper, and Bernard Janicki. Noel Rose made special contributions and was a cofounder. His experience included AAI committees, advocacy of the American Board of Medical Laboratory Immunology within the American Society of Microbiology, as editorin-chief of the Manual of Clinical Laboratory Immunology, and as editor of the journal, Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology. He shared administrative responsibilities in the first years and has recounted some of the early events (Noel Rose, The inception of the Clinical Immunology Society—see http://www.clinimmsoc.org/about/history. php). Gary Fathman was prominent with his knowledge of the emergence of Immunology in many Clinical subspecialties and his own contributions at this interface. Max Cooper was a leader in both pediatric and fundamental Immunology and was en route to becoming president of the AAI. Bernard Janicki was central to Immunology communication at the NIH and communication with NIAID leadership.
-
Clinical Laboratory Immunology: the future.
Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology, 1999Co-Authors: John L. FaheyAbstract:Preparation for the future has two elements. One is to look at the dynamics operating at the present time to estimate where these are heading. The second is to have an open but prepared mind to discern important new elements that will arise to impact on the practice of Clinical Laboratory Immunology. The future is going to be a foreign land, as has been pointed out by Herbert Hooijkaas (1). The language will be different from that which we are used to. The terms of reference will be different. The areas of importance will be different and the assumptions of professional knowledge and responsibility may be different. Clearly, meeting the conditions required for successful performance and communication in a foreign land or era will require continual attention. Readiness to learn as well as preparation in the basics will be needed for effective participation in the future world.