MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023474860

Clinical utility of serologic testing for celiac disease in ontario: an evidence-based analysis.

2010· article· en· W3023474860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSerologyDermatitis herpetiformisDiseaseTissue transglutaminaseCoeliac diseaseImmunologyGliadinGastroenterologyGlutenBiopsyAntibodyInternal medicinePathologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE OF ANALYSIS: The objective of this evidence-based evaluation is to assess the accuracy of serologic tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease in subjects with symptoms consistent with this disease. Furthermore the impact of these tests in the diagnostic pathway of the disease and decision making was also evaluated. CELIAC DISEASE: Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease that develops in genetically predisposed individuals. The immunological response is triggered by ingestion of gluten, a protein that is present in wheat, rye, and barley. The treatment consists of strict lifelong adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD). Patients with celiac disease may present with a myriad of symptoms such as diarrhea, abdominal pain, weight loss, iron deficiency anemia, dermatitis herpetiformis, among others. SEROLOGIC TESTING IN THE DIAGNOSIS CELIAC DISEASE: There are a number of serologic tests used in the diagnosis of celiac disease. Anti-gliadin antibody (AGA)Anti-endomysial antibody (EMA)Anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody (tTG)Anti-deamidated gliadin peptides antibodies (DGP)Serologic tests are automated with the exception of the EMA test, which is more time-consuming and operator-dependent than the other tests. For each serologic test, both immunoglobulin A (IgA) or G (IgG) can be measured, however, IgA measurement is the standard antibody measured in celiac disease. DIAGNOSIS OF CELIAC DISEASE: According to celiac disease guidelines, the diagnosis of celiac disease is established by small bowel biopsy. Serologic tests are used to initially detect and to support the diagnosis of celiac disease. A small bowel biopsy is indicated in individuals with a positive serologic test. In some cases an endoscopy and small bowel biopsy may be required even with a negative serologic test. The diagnosis of celiac disease must be performed on a gluten-containing diet since the small intestine abnormalities and the serologic antibody levels may resolve or improve on a GFD. Since IgA measurement is the standard for the serologic celiac disease tests, false negatives may occur in IgA-deficient individuals. INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF CELIAC DISEASE: The incidence and prevalence of celiac disease in the general population and in subjects with symptoms consistent with or at higher risk of celiac disease based on systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2009 are summarized below. INCIDENCE OF CELIAC DISEASE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION: ADULTS OR MIXED POPULATION: 1 to 17/100,000/year CHILDREN: 2 to 51/100,000/yearIn one of the studies, a stratified analysis showed that there was a higher incidence of celiac disease in younger children compared to older children, i.e., 51 cases/100,000/year in 0 to 2 year-olds, 33/100,000/year in 2 to 5 year-olds, and 10/100,000/year in children 5 to 15 years old. PREVALENCE OF CELIAC DISEASE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION: The prevalence of celiac disease reported in population-based studies identified in the 2004 systematic review varied between 0.14% and 1.87% (median: 0.47%, interquartile range: 0.25%, 0.71%). According to the authors of the review, the prevalence did not vary by age group, i.e., adults and children. PREVALENCE OF CELIAC DISEASE IN HIGH RISK SUBJECTS: Type 1 diabetes (adults and children): 1 to 11%AUTOIMMUNE THYROID DISEASE: 2.9 to 3.3%FIRST DEGREE RELATIVES OF PATIENTS WITH CELIAC DISEASE: 2 to 20% PREVALENCE OF CELIAC DISEASE IN SUBJECTS WITH SYMPTOMS CONSISTENT WITH THE DISEASE: The prevalence of celiac disease in subjects with symptoms consistent with the disease varied widely among studies, i.e., 1.5% to 50% in adult studies, and 1.1% to 17% in pediatric studies. Differences in prevalence may be related to the referral pattern as the authors of a systematic review noted that the prevalence tended to be higher in studies whose population originated from tertiary referral centres compared to general practice. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: What is the sensitivity and specificity of serologic tests in the diagnosis celiac disease?What is the clinical validity of serologic tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease? The clinical validity was defined as the ability of the test to change diagnosis.What is the clinical utility of serologic tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease? The clinical utility was defined as the impact of the test on decision making.What is the budget impact of serologic tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease?What is the cost-effectiveness of serologic tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease? LITERATURE SEARCH: A literature search was performed on November 13(th), 2009 using OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) for studies published from January 1(st) 2003 and November 13(th) 2010. Abstracts were reviewed by a single reviewer and, for those studies meeting the eligibility criteria, full-text articles were obtained. Reference lists were also examined for any additional relevant studies not identified through the search. Articles with unknown eligibility were reviewed with a second clinical epidemiologist, then a group of epidemiologists until consensus was established. The quality of evidence was assessed as high, moderate, low or very low according to GRADE methodology. Inclusion Criteria Inclusion CriteriaExclusion CriteriaStudies that evaluated diagnostic accuracy, i.e., both sensitivity and specificity of serology tests in the diagnosis of celiac disease.Study population consisted of untreated patients with symptoms consistent with celiac disease.Studies in which both serologic celiac disease tests and small bowel biopsy (gold standard) were used in all subjects.Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, prospective observational studies, and retrospective cohort studies.At least 20 subjects included in the celiac disease group.English language.Human studies.Studies published from 2000 on.Clearly defined cut-off value for the serology test. If more than one test was evaluated, only those tests for which a cut-off was provided were included.Description of small bowel biopsy procedure clearly outlined (location, number of biopsies per patient), unless if specified that celiac disease diagnosis guidelines were followed.Patients in the treatment group had untreated CD.Studies on screening of the general asymptomatic population.Studies that evaluated rapid diagnostic kits for use either at home or in physician's offices.Studies that evaluated diagnostic modalities other than serologic tests such as capsule endoscopy, push enteroscopy, or genetic testing.Cut-off for serologic tests defined based on controls included in the study.Study population defined based on positive serology or subjects pre-screened by serology tests.Celiac disease status known before study enrolment.Sensitivity or specificity estimates based on repeated testing for the same subject.Non-peer-reviewed literature such as editorials and letters to the editor. POPULATION: The population consisted of adults and children with untreated, undiagnosed celiac disease with symptoms consistent with the disease. SEROLOGIC CELIAC DISEASE TESTS EVALUATED: Anti-gliadin antibody (AGA)Anti-endomysial antibody (EMA)Anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody (tTG)Anti-deamidated gliadin peptides antibody (DGP)Combinations of some of the serologic tests listed above were evaluated in some studiesBoth IgA and IgG antibodies were evaluated for the serologic tests listed above. OUTCOMES OF INTEREST: SensitivitySpecificityPositive and negative likelihood ratiosDiagnostic odds ratio (OR)Area under the sROC curve (AUC)Small bowel biopsy was used as the gold standard in order to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of each serologic test. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for the different serologic tests were calculated using a bivariate, binomial generalized linear mixed model. Statistical significance for differences in sensitivity and specificity between serologic tests was defined by P values less than 0.05, where "false discovery rate" adjustments were made for multiple hypothesis testing. The bivariate regression analyses were performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA). Using the bivariate model parameters, summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were produced using Review Manager 5.0.22 (The Nordiac Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008). The area under the sROC curve (AUC) was estimated by bivariate mixed-efects binary regression modeling framework. Model specification, estimation and prediction are carried out with xtmelogit in Stata release 10 (Statacorp, 2007). Statistical tests for the differences in AUC estimates could not be carried out. The study results were stratified according to patient or disease characteristics such as age, severity of Marsh grade abnormalities, among others, if reported in the studies. The literature indicates that the diagnostic accuracy of serologic tests for celiac disease may be affected in patients with chronic liver disease, therefore, the studies identified through the systematic literature review that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of serologic tests for celiac disease in patients with chronic liver disease were summarized. The effect of the GFD in patiens diagnosed with celiac disease was also summarized if reported in the studies eligible for the analysis. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: PUBLISHED SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: Five systematic reviews of studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of serologic celiac disease tests were identified through our literature search. Seventeen individual studies identified in adults and children were eligible for this evaluation. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.216
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207