ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Multiplex autoantibody screening in pediatric type 1 diabetes: POC Blot vs. ELISA for gluten-related disorders.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is frequently associated with various autoimmune disorders, including gluten-related disorders (GRDs). Early screening for autoantibodies can provide insights into the co-occurrence of these conditions in pediatric patients. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a Point-of-Care Test (POC) BLOT based assay in comparison to the conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for multiplex autoantibody screening for gluten-related disorders in children with T1D. Methods: A cohort of pediatric and adolescent patients diagnosed with T1D was recruited for the study. Both POC-BLOT and ELISA methods were utilized to screen specific autoantibodies associated with GRDs, including anti-gliadin and anti-transglutaminase antibodies. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for both screening methods. Statistical analyses were conducted to compare the results of the two assays. Results: A total of 192 participants were included in the study. The overall method agreement between the POC-BLOT and the ELISA test was approximately 90%. The PPV and NPV for both methods were also calculated indicating that the performance of the POC assay was comparable to ELISA. Additionally, results indicated that the POC assay provided faster results, highlighting its potential utility in clinical pediatric settings. Conclusion: The POC blot assay demonstrates promising potential as a reliable and rapid screening tool for autoantibodies in pediatric patients with T1D and gluten-related disorders in resource-limited settings. While further validation is needed, these findings suggest that POC testing could facilitate earlier diagnosis and improve the clinical management of coexisting autoimmune conditions in this population.
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.