Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2014
A point-of-care test for facing the burden of undiagnosed celiac disease in the Mediterranean area: a pragmatic design study.
Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mass Screening Strategies for Celiac Disease in Apparently Healthy Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Recognizing the Emergent and Submerged Iceberg of the Celiac Disease: ITAMA Project-Global Strategy Protocol.Pediatric reports · 2022Article
- How to manage celiac disease and gluten-free diet during the COVID-19 era: proposals from a tertiary referral center in a high-incidence scenario.BMC gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Is There a Role of Using a Rapid Finger Prick Antibody Test in Screening for Celiac Disease in Children?Gastroenterology research and practice · 2019Article
- Celiac disease: Understandings in diagnostic, nutritional, and medicinal aspects.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed at assessing the factors that can influence results of the dissemination of an already validated, new generation commercial Point-of-Care Test (POCT) for detecting celiac disease (CD), in the Mediterranean area, when used in settings where it was designed to be administered, especially in countries with poor resources.
methodsPragmatic study design. Family pediatricians at their offices in Italy, nurses and pediatricians in Slovenia and Turkey at pediatricians', schools and university primary care centers looked for CD in 3,559 (1-14 yrs), 1,480 (14-23 yrs) and 771 (1-18 yrs) asymptomatic subjects, respectively. A new generation POCT detecting IgA-tissue antitransglutaminase antibodies and IgA deficiency in a finger-tip blood drop was used. Subjects who tested positive and those suspected of having CD were referred to a Celiac Centre to undergo further investigations in order to confirm CD diagnosis. POCT Positive Predictive Value (PPV) at tertiary care (with Negative Predictive Value) and in primary care settings, and POCT and CD rates per thousand in primary care were estimated.
resultsAt tertiary care setting, PPV of the POCT and 95% CI were 89.5 (81.3-94.3) and 90 (56-98.5) with Negative Predictive Value 98.5 (94.2-99.6) and 98.7% (92-99.8) in children and adults, respectively. In primary care settings of different countries where POCT was performed by a different number of personnel, PPV ranged from 16 to 33% and the CD and POCT rates per thousand ranged from 4.77 to 1.3 and from 31.18 to 2.59, respectively.
conclusionsInterpretation of POCT results by different personnel may influence the performance of POC but dissemination of POCT is an urgent priority to be implemented among people of countries with limited resources, such as rural populations and school children.
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.