↓ Skip to main content

Screening and Monitoring Coeliac Disease: Multicentre Trial of a New Serum Antibody Test Kit

Overview of attention for article published in Disease Markers, January 1994
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Screening and Monitoring Coeliac Disease: Multicentre Trial of a New Serum Antibody Test Kit
Published in
Disease Markers, January 1994
DOI 10.1155/1994/285298
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter L. Devine, Geoffrey W. Birrells, Jeffrey P. Golder, Michael N. Marsh, Shethah Morgan, Grace Chang, David Gillis, Peter Hobson, Peter Robertson, Ross Whybint, John H. Skerritt

Abstract

A multicentre trial was conducted to evaluate a new test for anti-gliadin antibodies (AGA) in serum (Coeliac Screening Kit, CSK, Medical Innovations Limited, Artarmon, NSW, Australia). The test showed excellent reproducibility for both anti-gliadin IgA and IgG detection. The average intraassay coefficient of variation (CV) was 3.0% for IgA and 2.4% for IgG (n = 6), while the average interassay CV was 6.4% for IgA and 4.3% for IgG (n = 3). By defining a positive test as both IgA and IgG elevated, a sensitivity of 93% in untreated coeliacs (n = 75) was observed. The corresponding specificities in healthy adults (n = 130) and healthy children (n = 77) were > 99% and 100% respectively, while in patients with other gastrointestinal disorders (disease controls) the specificity was 94% (n = 129). The test was also useful in monitoring patients, with anti-gliadin IgA and IgG falling for up to a year after commencing a gluten-free diet (GFD) (12 adults). In some patients however, antibody levels did not reach the normal cutpoint after many months on a GFD, which may reflect the patients' poor adherence to their gluten free diet. The test was superior to the Pharmacia anti-gliadin ELISA, and should be useful as an aid to the diagnosis of coeliac disease, as well as in the follow-up of treated patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 28%
Researcher 3 17%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Linguistics 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 1998.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Disease Markers
#255
of 1,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,495
of 71,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disease Markers
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,363 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 71,581 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them