ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2019
Efficacy Study of Anti-Endomysium Antibodies for Celiac Disease Diagnosis: A Retrospective Study in a Spanish Pediatric Population.
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.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- One threshold does not fit all: assay-specific validation of anti-tTG IgA tests for biopsy-free diagnosis of pediatric celiac disease.Immunologic research · 2026Article
- Intestinal Anti-Endomysium Antibodies Are a Useful Tool for Diagnosing Celiac Disease in Pediatric and Adult Patients.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Review
- Celiac Disease in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and Other Pediatric Rheumatic Disorders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
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
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
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.