ReviewEJIFCC2026
A Review of the Methods Available for the Detection of Antibodies Against Transglutaminase and Deaminated Gliadin in Celiac Disease, Traditional and Emerging Technologies.
Review in EJIFCC, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Celiac Disease (CD) is an immune-mediated enteropathy where serological testing, centered on IgA anti Tissue Transglutaminase 2 (anti-TG2) and IgA anti Endomysium antibodies (anti-EMA), is the diagnostic cornerstone. Anti-TG2 is recognized as the most sensitive marker, while anti-EMA is the most specific. This review examines the performance characteristics, advantages, and limitations of traditional and emerging technologies for CD serology. Traditional platforms include ELISA - a cost-effective, open platform used for quantitative anti-TG2 and anti-DGP detection and IIF for anti-EMA, which, despite being labor-intensive and operator-dependent, maintains high specificity by detecting anti-TG2 in its native conformation. Newer technologies prioritize automation in view of clinical laboratory demands. CLIA and FEIA are fully automated systems that offer enhanced analytical sensitivity and rapid workflow. Meta-analyses confirm that the diagnostic accuracy of IgA anti-TG2 is statistically equivalent across CLIA (Sens. 0.98, Spec. 0.97), FEIA (Sens. 0.97, Spec. 0.99), and ELISA (Sens. 0.96, Spec. 0.97). However, CLIA often requires higher diagnostic thresholds for biopsy-sparing protocols. Emerging solutions include Multiplex Flow Immunoassays (MFI) /Microarrays, which enable simultaneous multi-isotype antibody detection with high concordance to reference assays (PPA 96.0 %, NPA 98.0 % for IgA anti-TG2) while Point-of-Care Tests (POCTs) provide rapid, equipment-free screening for primary care, though they exhibit moderate sensitivity compared to laboratory assays. The overall trend favors automated and multiplexed methods, improving efficiency and supporting biopsy-sparing strategies based on robust quantitative autoantibody profiling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42707802PMC13548088What 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.