2005
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2004.058487
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ataxia, peripheral neuropathy, and anti-gliadin antibody. Guilt by association?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The controversy is caused by the finding of such antibodies in patients with ataxia due to a proven genetic cause [23,24],which has led to the hypothesis that these antibodies are epiphenomena, secondary to a primary degenerative process. We have reviewed 10 studies that addressed the question of prevalence and specificity of these antibodies in patients with ataxia [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Two studies were Class II [23,25] and the other eight Class III or IV [22,24,[26][27][28][29][30].…”
Section: Negative Family Historymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The controversy is caused by the finding of such antibodies in patients with ataxia due to a proven genetic cause [23,24],which has led to the hypothesis that these antibodies are epiphenomena, secondary to a primary degenerative process. We have reviewed 10 studies that addressed the question of prevalence and specificity of these antibodies in patients with ataxia [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Two studies were Class II [23,25] and the other eight Class III or IV [22,24,[26][27][28][29][30].…”
Section: Negative Family Historymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…14 Consistent with previous reports, in patients without CD, first-generation gliadin antibodies lacked specificity for neurologic disorders purported to be related to gluten exposure. 10,24,25 Using tissue immunofluorescence, we did not detect any novel IgA or IgG neural antibodies that might serve as biomarkers of gluten-triggered neurologic disorders. 20,26 For specificity, our contemporary tissue immunofluorescence protocol includes gastric and renal tissue controls (side by side with brain tissue) and preabsorption of serums to remove non-organ-specific antibodies.…”
Section: Statisticsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…After resolving initial disagreements, 11/26 (42.3%) studies9 11–14 17–22 were considered eligible (figure 1), representing 6.9% of the total search (11/159). The reasons for excluding 15/26 articles8 23–36 in the order of high to low percentage are as follows: studies only on IDCA cases without HA cases or controls (n=6, 40%),8 23 26 27 30 32 studies on cases of ataxia with or without coeliac disease instead of ataxia cases versus controls (n=3, 20%),31 33 34 studies that defined IDCA distinctively from the general consensus (ie, non-genetic ataxias caused by acquired conditions and sporadic neurodegenerative disorders)15 (n=2, 13.3%),15 34 a study that only tested for anti-deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) antibody without testing for AGA (n=1, 6.7%),25 a study that only tested for anti TTG2 antibody without testing for AGA (n=1, 6.7%),29 a study that did not include IDCA cases (n=1, 6.7%)24 and a duplicated study with same patient groups but under different titles (n=1, 6.7%) 36. These 11 studies included in the meta-analysis were all rated as 7 stars or above on Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale Adapted for Cross-Sectional Studies and thus included for meta-analysis.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%