ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2021
Diagnosing and Monitoring Celiac Patients with Selective IgA Deficiency: Still an Open Issue.
Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunoglobulin a Deficiency in Coeliac Disease: A Scoping Review.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Article
- Review
- Unraveling the Complexity of Celiac Disease: A Narrative Review of Its Multisystem Nature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Challenges in the Pediatric Celiac Disease Diagnosis: An Up-to-Date Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The follow-up of patients with celiac disease.Journal of translational autoimmunity · 2025Review
- Intestinal celiac disease - related autoantibodies.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Wheat-Related Disorders in Children: A 360-Degree View.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Study of the immune response in celiac patients with selective IgA deficiency who start a gluten-free diet.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Article
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 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although, the association between celiac disease (CD) and selective immunoglobulin A deficiency (SIgAD) has been known for more than fifty years, the procedures for diagnosing and monitoring patients with both conditions are still far from definitive. When serological markers were introduced as pre-bioptic investigations, it was immediately clear that searching for specific IgA antibodies without checking total serum IgA could lead to a failure in diagnosing IgA-deficient CD patients, while specific IgG antibodies could be useful as additional tests, because they are frequently found in the serum of affected patients. Nonetheless, until recently the diagnosis of CD in IgA-deficient patients was based on the few, fragmentary and often contradictory data available in literature. The introduction of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) guidelines in 2012 provided the current criteria for diagnosing CD in IgA-deficient patients, although some issues remained open, such as the selection of patients who should undergo specific IgG antibody testing and the choice of the most reliable IgG-based test for both diagnosis and follow-up. A real-life study recently assessed the impact of the 2012 ESPGHAN guidelines in diagnosing and monitoring CD in SIgAD patients, highlighting several pitfalls that can lead to operational uncertainties and difficulties in patient management. In the present report, the evolution of diagnostic tools and criteria for CD in SIgAD patients has been critically assessed, both strengths and open issues have been highlighted, and future perspectives for improving the current diagnostic protocols have been suggested.
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.