ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2018
Case-finding in primary care for coeliac disease: Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of a rapid point-of-care test.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Burden of Celiac Disease.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Challenges in the Pediatric Celiac Disease Diagnosis: An Up-to-Date Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Rapid Anti-tTG-IgA Screening Test for Early Diagnosis of Celiac Disease in Pediatric Populations.Nutrients · 2023Article
- 2021 Patient Preferences for Point of Care Testing Survey: More Acceptance and Less Concern.The journal of applied laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Patient Preferences for Point-of-Care Testing: Survey Validation and Results.Point of care · 2020Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Point-of-Care Test for Celiac Disease Antibody Screening among Infertile Patients.Inflammatory intestinal diseases · 2019Article
- Determining whether coeliac disease case-finding in primary care is better than random testing: a retrospective study.BJGP open · 2019Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn on-site, rapid, fingertip, whole-blood point-of-care test (POCT) is attractive for active case-finding of coeliac disease (CD) in primary care because of its simplicity.
aimThe aim of this article is to assess the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of adult case-finding using a POCT based on deamidated gliadin peptide antibodies (IgA/IgG-DGP) in primary care for CD diagnosis.
methodsA case-finding study for CD was conducted by using an easy-to-use, on-site, whole-blood for IgA/IgG-DGP-based fingertip POCT compared with tTG2 in 350 individuals. Sample size was calculated based on 0.28% prevalence in the reference population. Duodenal biopsies for histology, intraepithelial lymphocytes and in situ deposition of tTG2 were obtained if tTG2 and/or POCT were positive. Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of strategies using serology or POCT were calculated.
resultsPrevalence of CD was 1.14% (95% CI, 0.3-3.4), almost double what was previously observed. Four patients were diagnosed with CD. tTG2 was positive in three (0.85%) and POCT in 29 (8.2%). Sensitivity of POCT for CD was 100%, specificity 93%, PPV 14%, and NPV 100%. POCT followed by duodenal biopsy was the most cost-effective approach in our setting (standard diagnosis: €13,033/case; POCT + duodenal biopsy: €7360/case).
conclusionsA negative POCT allows ruling out CD in primary care, making it suitable for case-finding. POCT strategy was the most cost effective.
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.