ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2012
A novel algorithm for the diagnosis of celiac disease and a comprehensive review of celiac disease diagnostics.
Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Microbes and Viruses Are Bugging the Gut in Celiac Disease. Are They Friends or Foes?Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Review
- Vaccines, adjuvants and autoimmunity.Pharmacological research · 2015Review
- Prevalence of serum celiac antibodies in a multiracial Asian population--a first study in the young Asian adult population of Malaysia.PloS one · 2015Article
- Clinical spectrum of food allergies: a comprehensive review.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2014Review
- Using patients like my patient for clinical decision support: institution-specific probability of celiac disease diagnosis using simplified near-neighbor classification.Journal of general internal medicine · 2013Article
- Less travelled roads in clinical immunology and allergy: drug reactions and the environmental influence.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2013Review
- The thrombophilic network of autoantibodies in celiac disease.BMC medicine · 2013Article
- Cutting-edge issues in autoimmunity and allergy of the digestive system.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2012Article
- Modern diagnosis of celiac disease and relevant differential diagnoses in the case of cereal intolerance.Allergo journal internationalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an urgent clinical need for a better laboratory celiac disease diagnosis with both less false positive results and minimal underdetection. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance and diagnostic accuracy of different assays in an outpatient population setting for the diagnosis for celiac disease (CD) in order to design an optimal algorithm. We used 15 different ELISA assays to assess 47 blood samples of newly diagnosed children (positive biopsy results) and 52 samples from age- and sex-matched children with negative biopsy results for CD. Scoring criteria were established for grading the assays performance and characteristics. The combined gliadin and tTG assays exhibited the best sensitivity (100%). The addition of other assays to the CeliCheck neo-epitopes assay improved specificity so that the final algorithm had 100% sensitivity, 96.2% specificity, and 98.1% accuracy. The clinical demand for both maximal sensitivity and maximal specificity cannot be achieved with a single test. Using a combination of a sensitive assay together with specific assays improved celiac disease detection rates, with an acceptable number of false positive results. This model, however, needs to be confirmed prospectively in both children and adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.