ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2023
Performance of deamidated gliadin peptide antibodies as first screening for celiac disease in the general pediatric population.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elevation of tTG-IgA Antibodies in a Prospective Cohort of Children at Risk of Celiac Disease: Insights From the CDGEMM Cohort.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Celiac serology has evolved, with the identification of newer antibodies against deamidated gliadin peptides (DGP) [e.g., anti-DGP, immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin G (IgG) types] with sensitivity and specificity in detecting celiac disease (CeD) that are equivalent to anti-tissue transglutaminase [anti-tissue transglutaminase (TTG) IgA]-based tests, particularly in populations with high pretest probability of CeD (prevalence of CeD > 50% of the population under study). This opens the possibility that anti-DGP assays can be used to identify CeD in the general population where the prevalence of CeD is very low (≈1%). Objective: This study aimed (1) to determine the diagnostic performance of DGP antibodies-based serologic assays in identifying CeD during the screening of the general population and (2) to compare the levels of anti-DGP antibodies among CeD patients with mild and severe degrees of enteropathy. Methods: Serology tests for DGP antibodies (DGP-IgA, DGP-IgG, and conjugate TTG/DGP antibodies) were performed on 104 serum samples of positive TTG-IgA (100 confirmed and four potential celiac patients) and a randomly selected 1,000 negative TTG-IgA serum samples collected during mass screening of children (aged 6-15 years) in 2014-2015. Results: Sera from 32 of the 1,000 TTG-IgA negative serum specimens (3.2%) tested positive for one or more of the three anti-DGP serology tests. A total of 13 of the 32 anti-DGP seropositive patients had persistent positive results on follow-up samples in 2020 (1.3%). Eight of the 13 underwent endoscopy with biopsies, and only two had confirmed CeD (both DGP-IgG positive) (0.2%). The sensitivity and specificity of the serology assays were as follows: DGP-IgA (62.7%, 40%), DGP-IgG (80.4%, 100%), and conjugate TTG/DGP (96%, 10%). Based on receiver operating characteristic curves, the area under the curve for DGP-IgG (0.919; 95% CI -0.00406 to 0.114) was comparable to TTG-IgA (0.974; 95% CI 0.924-0.995) ( Conclusion: The TTG-IgA assay remains the most reliable screening serology test for CeD in mass screening studies. The performance of TTG-IgA has improved marginally by adding DGP-IgG to the mass screening protocol. In CeD patients detected by mass screening, the anti-DGP antibody titer was significantly higher among patients with a severe degree of enteropathy as compared to the group with mild enteropathy.
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.