ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
Comparison of non-invasive tests with invasive tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biopsy-Sparing Diagnosis of Coeliac Disease Based on Endomysial Antibody Testing and Clinical Risk Assessment.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Non-biopsy Strategy for the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease in Adults: A Narrative Review.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Review
- More Than Three Years for Normalisation of Routine Laboratory Values after Gluten Withdrawal in Paediatric Coeliac Patients.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The role of serology in the diagnosis of coeliac disease.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2023Review
- A prospective study of catch-up growth among Indian children with celiac disease.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Comparison of non-invasive tests with invasive tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsToday, invasive diagnostic tests are necessary for definite diagnosis of adult celiac disease (CD). However, in selected children patients, the need for invasive tests is ceased. In this study, we evaluated adult patients according to the ESPGHAN (European Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition Society) criteria.
methodsThirty-nine patients (aged 17-66) with symptoms of CD were included. Serum samples were tested for total IgA, tTG-IgA (antitissue transglutaminase), tTG-IgG, DGP-IgA (antideamidated gliadin peptide), DGP-IgG, and EMA (endomysial antibodies). HLA-DQ typing was studied with PCR-SSP (sequence-specific primers) method. Biopsy samples were evaluated according to Marsh scoring.
resultsIn CD patients, 71.4% (15/21) of the patients were diagnosed without biopsy according to the EPSGHAN criteria but when ESPGHAN's IgA tTG threshold value for children was taken into consideration (>200 IU/mL), the sensitivity decreased to 81%. Celiac disease diagnosed and control groups were compared in terms of HLA tissue types. DQ2.5 homozygous or DQ2.5/DQ2.2 was significantly higher in CD group, and DQ2- or DQ8-negative HLA tissue type was significantly higher in control group.
conclusionWhen serological tests, HLA typing, and clinical symptoms are all in favor of CD, biopsy may not be performed in selected adult CD patients.
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.