ArticleSaudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association
Diagnostic performances of celiac disease serological tests among Saudi patients.
Article in Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: : The prevalence of celiac disease (CD) is relatively high in Saudi Arabia, and little is known about the accuracy of serological markers in the local population. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of various serological markers for detecting CD in Saudi children and adults. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 148 CD patients and 512 controls to assess the diagnostic performances of IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies (TTG), IgG anti-TTG, IgA anti-deamidated gliadin peptide antibodies (anti-DGP), IgG anti-DGP, and endomysium antibodies (EMA). Results: : Immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti-TTG was the most sensitive test [98.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1-99.8%)], while EMA was the most specific [100%, 95%CI 98.6-100%]. By applying the criteria of IgA anti-TTG titers ≥10 × upper limit of normal (ULN) and positive EMA, 57.3% of patients could have avoided intestinal biopsy. IgG anti-DGP test had a sensitivity of 85.9% (95% CI = 77.3-91.5%) and a specificity of 93.5% (95% CI = (90.0-95.9%). Titers of IgA anti-TTG, IgA anti-DGP, and IgG anti-DGP were higher in CD patients with the Marsh 3c class than in those with the Marsh 3b and Marsh 3a classes. IgG anti-TTG and IgA anti-DGP had no additional diagnostic value. Conclusions: : IgA anti-TTG and EMA are excellent CD markers in children and adults. The use of IgA anti-TTG titers ≥10 × ULN and positive EMA as criteria for CD diagnosis in children and adults might be a good alternative to intestinal biopsy.
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.