SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for dermatitis herpetiformis: systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of Dermatitis Herpetiformis (DH) relies on both clinical and serological tests. Accurate diagnostic tools are critical for effective management. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for DH, focusing on the impact of gluten-free diet (GFD) status on test performance, using Direct Immunofluorescence (DIF) as the reference standard.
methodsThis review follows the PRISMA-DTA guidelines. The PICO framework was used to define the review question. Databases, including PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched until July 14, 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Bayesian meta-analyses were conducted using the MetaBayesDTA tool.
resultsA total of 25 studies were included in the systematic review, with 7 studies included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) estimates varied by test type and population characteristics, highlighting the significant impact of GFD status on test accuracy and false positivity rate. The meta-analysis on the sample that included patients with celiac disease (CeD) who had not adhered to a GFD, revealed that the ELISA for IgA- tTG (SE: 0.90, SE 95% CrI: 0.71-0.99; SP: 0.14, 95% CrI: 0.03-0.44) and IIF for IgA-EMA (SE: 0.89, 95% CrI: 0.32-0.99; SP: 0.13, 95% CrI: 0.01-0.71) demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity. Instead, ELISA for IgA- eTG (SE: 0.46, 95% CrI: 0.05-0.91; SP: 0.60, 95% CrI: 0.14-0.95) exhibited a lower sensitivity but a higher specificity than others tests.
conclusionsSelecting appropriate diagnostic tests based on clinical context is crucial for accurate DH diagnosis. Selecting appropriate diagnostic tests based on clinical context is crucial for accurate DH diagnosis. Incorporating the GFD status of patients and combining IIF for IgA EMA and ELISA for IgA tTG tests in diagnostic algorithms can improve sensitivity and specificity, leading to better patient outcomes. Future research should focus on standardizing study designs and improving patient selection methods to enhance diagnostic accuracy.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023444060.
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.