Table III.

Nuclear indirect immunofluorescence pattern in the different myositis subsets compared to the healthy comparators.

	HC (n=31)	DM (n=42)	IBM (n=18)	PM (n=34)
Fine speckled	39% (12)*	64% (27)*	61% (11)	56% (19)
Homogeneous	29% (9)**	10% (4)*	6% (1)	0% (0)***
Nuclear large/coarse speckled	13% (4)	10% (4)	6% (1)	3% (1)
Centromere	6% (2)	0% (0)	0% (0)	6% (2)
Nucleolar homogeneous	6% (2)	7% (3)	6% (1)	18% (6)
Nucleolar clumpy	3% (1)	2% (1)	6% (1)	6% (2)
Topo I speckled	3% (1)	0% (0)	0% (0)	0% (0)
Nuclear envelope punctate	0% (0)	2% (1)	11% (2)	6% (2)
Nuclear envelope smooth	0% (0)	0% (0)	6% (1)	0% (0)
Dense fine speckled	0% (0)	2% (1)	0% (0)	0% (0)
Discrete nuclear dots multiple	0% (0)	2% (1)	0% (0)	3% (1)
Nucleolar envelope punctate	0% (0)	0% (0)	0% (0)	3% (1)

^*p<0.05,

^**p<0.01,

^***p<0.001.

Dichotomous variables were shown as %(n) and compared using the Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. Each group was compared with the healthy comparators.

HC: healthy comparator; DM: dermatomyositis; IBM: inclusion body myositis; PM: polymyositis.