Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31835690›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019

Efficacy Study of Anti-Endomysium Antibodies for Celiac Disease Diagnosis: A Retrospective Study in a Spanish Pediatric Population.

María Roca, Ester Donat, Natalia Marco-Maestud, Etna Masip, David Hervás-Marín, David Ramos, Begoña Polo, Carmen Ribes-Koninckx

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

María RocaCeliac Disease and Digestive Immunopathology Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8157-2446
Ester DonatCeliac Disease and Digestive Immunopathology Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain.
Natalia Marco-MaestudCeliac Disease and Digestive Immunopathology Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain.
Etna MasipCeliac Disease and Digestive Immunopathology Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain.
David Hervás-MarínStatistics Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0635-4961
David RamosPathology Service, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain.
Begoña PoloCeliac Disease and Digestive Immunopathology Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain.
Carmen Ribes-KoninckxCeliac Disease and Digestive Immunopathology Unit, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, 46026 Valencia, Spain.
Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe · ESInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of anti-endomysium antibodies (EMA) as a serological marker for celiac disease (CD) diagnosis in a pediatric population. A retrospective study of pediatric patients who underwent a CD serological markers study: EMA and anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies (anti-TG2). Clinical symptomatology, degree of histological lesion, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotype compatible with CD (HLA DQ2 and/or DQ8), and final diagnosis were taken into account. We included 445 patients who were classified in two groups according to the final diagnosis. Group 1: 232 children with CD, 91.4% of whom exhibited small intestinal villous atrophy, 228 being EMA-positive and four EMA-negative. Group 2: 213 children with a non-CD diagnosis, 212 EMA negative and one EMA positive. Both antibodies, EMA and anti-TG2, reached similar sensitivities, 98% and 99% respectively, while EMA had a higher specificity (99%) than anti-TG2 (93%). By using both markers combined, compared to using anti-TG2 alone, 5.7% of patients are better diagnosed. However, when we compare the efficacy of EMA and anti-TG2 in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, the sensitivity of EMA is 98% irrespective of symptoms, thus higher than for anti-TG2 ≥10 × upper limit of normal (ULN) (respectively 77% and 84%). Our results support the use of EMA to increase CD diagnostic accuracy in a non-biopsy approach, especially in asymptomatic children.

Indexed as

anti-endomysium antibodiesanti-tissue transglutaminase antibodiesCeliac diseasepediatric population

Identifiers

PMID31835690
PMCPMC6947542
OpenAlexW2995292811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.