ArticleJPGN reports2025
A multicenter study: New cut-off values of antitransglutaminase antibodies processed by chemiluminescence in children with suspected celiac disease.
Article in JPGN reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Celiac disease in children with focus on symptoms and quality of life.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A multicenter study: New cut-off values of antitransglutaminase antibodies processed by chemiluminescence in children with suspected celiac disease.JPGN reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: (1) To assess the predictive value of anti-tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies (a-tTG) by chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) related to duodenal histology in children with suspected celiac disease (CD) and (2) to determine the cut-off value of a-tTG by CLIA that allows diagnosis of CD avoiding biopsy. Methods: Retrospective, descriptive, observational study in children between 1 and 16 years of age, studied for CD. Patients with IgA deficiency and those on a gluten-free diet were excluded. Sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for ≥10, 30, and 50 times the normal a-tTG (normal value [NV]) compared with histology, evaluated by blinded pathologists. Results: The total number of patients included was 262. The a-tTG IgA by CLIA with a cut-off point of 20 chemiluminescent units (CU) had a S of 99.5%, Sp, 10.26%, PPV, 86.38%, NPV, 80%. When a cut-off value of a-tTG ≥ 10 times NV (200 CU) was used, the S, Sp, PPV, and NPV were 65.4%, 69.23%, 94.2%, and 25.96%, respectively. Likewise, with a value ≥30 times NV (600 CU) the correlation with histology was 99.03%, reaching a PPV of 100% with a cut-off value ≥50 NV (1000 CU). Combining both methods a-tTG IgA + EMA IgA, we obtained similar results to the a-tTG IgA level for the proposed cut-off values. Conclusions: We suggest that the use of 30 times the NV cutoff values would be the best predictor of which patients do not need a 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.