ReviewJournal of translational autoimmunity2020
Testing for IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase in routine clinical practice: Requesting behaviour in relation to prevalence of positive results.
Review in Journal of translational autoimmunity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frequency of follow-up testing for tissue transglutaminase antibodies after initial positivity among children: An analysis of real-world data from a population-based cohort in Canada.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Past, Present, and Future of Noninvasive Tests to Assess Gluten Exposure, Celiac Disease Activity, and End-Organ Damage.Gastroenterology · 2024Review
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on autoimmune diagnostics in Europe: A lesson to be learned.Autoimmunity reviews · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDue to the high awareness of coeliac disease and improvement of serological tests, the number of requested laboratory tests has increased substantially over the years. In the current study we have evaluated the requesting behaviour of distinct clinical disciplines in relation to the prevalence of positive results and in the context of existing guidelines.
methodsData were retrospectively extracted from the laboratory information system over a time-span of 5 years in a tertiary hospital and compared with the situation in a secondary hospital.
resultsData reveal that for initial testing (n=18,183) the percentage positive results for IgA anti-TTG is <2%. Paediatricians have a slightly higher percentage of seropositive results (2.4-4.0%). Early confirmation (<2 months) of positive results by IgA anti-endomysium antibodies in an independent sample is only performed in a minority of paediatric patients. The majority of positive patients, however, have follow-up measurements (<14 months) in order to examine compliance to a gluten-free diet. Interestingly, initial requests for paediatric patients reveal an equal distribution between boys and girls, while in adult patients there is a two times preponderance of requests in female patients, similar to the female/male ratio in patients with positive results, being either paediatric or adult patients.
conclusionAlthough laboratory testing for coeliac disease may be primarily used to exclude the disease, it is evident that the percentage positive results for IgA anti-TTG is extremely low. This may indicate that the clinical manifestations that warrant testing, should be further specified in order to increase the pre-test probability. As the specific serology is important to bypass a biopsy in the diagnosis of coeliac disease according to the paediatric guideline, the confirmation in an independent sample needs to get more attention.
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.