THE STUDY

1. Page 8, Patients and methods: The authors describe their definition of cut-off level for IF-ANA as >95th percentile for female blood donors, and conclude that this has a very high sensitivity for SLE. There are indeed 24 men with SLE in the study. The authors has to better describe the cut-off level for and the sensitivity for SLE by the described criteria even for the male patients.

2. Page 9, Indirect IF microscopy: Line 38 - was the secondary antibody also for anti-dsDNA FITC conjugated gamma-chain specific anti-human ÍgG? Was the cut-off level for anti-dsDNA also refering to female blood donors?

3. Page 9, Anti-ENA antibodies: SSA should be defined with respect to Ro-60 and Ro-52, and if possible report these separately.

4. Routine laboratory analyses, page 10: Lupus anticoagulant was analysed, but not anti-cardiolipin antibodes. Why? A comment should be added.

RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS

1. A couple of more questions should be of interest to know: did the disease duration, or the number of nuclear antibodies have any impact on the clinical feature?

2. Table 1b: If possible - anti-SSA/Ro could be presented in Ro60 and Ro52 separately.

3. In the Introduction the auhtors refer to a study showing that homogenous ANA pattern is the most common in healthy individuals. There are indeed several publications showing that fine speckled pattern is the most common in healthy persons. The authors has to comment on this subject.