Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ (2007). «Inflammatory bowel disease: clinical aspects and established and evolving therapies». The Lancet369 (9573): 1641-57. PMID17499606. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60751-X.
Xavier RJ, Podolsky DK (2007). «Unravelling the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease». Nature448 (7152): 427-34. PMID17653185. doi:10.1038/nature06005.
Lewis NR, Scott BB (1 de julio de 2006). «Systematic review: the use of serology to exclude or diagnose coeliac disease (a comparison of the endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibody tests)». Aliment Pharmacol Ther (Revisión) 24 (1): 47-54. PMID16803602. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02967.x. «Both the endomysial antibody and tissue transglutaminase antibody have very high sensitivities (93% for both) and specificities (>99% and >98% respectively) for the diagnosis of typical coeliac disease with villous atrophy. (...) As the detection of at least partial villous atrophy was used to make a diagnosis of coeliac disease in the vast majority of studies, we can't assume that the same LRs apply to coeliac patients with lesser abnormality such as an increase in intraepithelial lymphocytes or electron-microscopic changes only. In fact, if such lesser abnormalities were used as criteria for diagnosing (and excluding) coeliac disease, the sensitivity of the tests could be lower (i.e. more false negatives), especially since a number of studies suggest that the EMA and tTG antibody tests are less sensitive with lesser degrees of mucosal abnormality».
Rodrigo L, Garrote JA, Vivas S (6 de septiembre de 2008). «Celiac disease». Med Clin (Barc) (Revisión) 131 (7): 264-70. PMID18775218. doi:10.1016/S0025-7753(08)72247-4. «Estos marcadores presentan en general una elevada sensibilidad y especificidad (cercanas al 90 %) en presencia de atrofia marcada de las vellosidades intestinales. Sin embargo, muestran una notable disminución de la sensibilidad (del orden del 40-50 %) en casos con atrofia vellositaria leve o cambios mínimos».
Rodrigo L, Garrote JA, Vivas S (6 de septiembre de 2008). «Celiac disease». Med Clin (Barc) (Revisión) 131 (7): 264-70. PMID18775218. doi:10.1016/S0025-7753(08)72247-4. «Estos marcadores presentan en general una elevada sensibilidad y especificidad (cercanas al 90 %) en presencia de atrofia marcada de las vellosidades intestinales. Sin embargo, muestran una notable disminución de la sensibilidad (del orden del 40-50 %) en casos con atrofia vellositaria leve o cambios mínimos».
Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ (2007). «Inflammatory bowel disease: clinical aspects and established and evolving therapies». The Lancet369 (9573): 1641-57. PMID17499606. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60751-X.
Xavier RJ, Podolsky DK (2007). «Unravelling the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease». Nature448 (7152): 427-34. PMID17653185. doi:10.1038/nature06005.
Lewis NR, Scott BB (1 de julio de 2006). «Systematic review: the use of serology to exclude or diagnose coeliac disease (a comparison of the endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibody tests)». Aliment Pharmacol Ther (Revisión) 24 (1): 47-54. PMID16803602. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02967.x. «Both the endomysial antibody and tissue transglutaminase antibody have very high sensitivities (93% for both) and specificities (>99% and >98% respectively) for the diagnosis of typical coeliac disease with villous atrophy. (...) As the detection of at least partial villous atrophy was used to make a diagnosis of coeliac disease in the vast majority of studies, we can't assume that the same LRs apply to coeliac patients with lesser abnormality such as an increase in intraepithelial lymphocytes or electron-microscopic changes only. In fact, if such lesser abnormalities were used as criteria for diagnosing (and excluding) coeliac disease, the sensitivity of the tests could be lower (i.e. more false negatives), especially since a number of studies suggest that the EMA and tTG antibody tests are less sensitive with lesser degrees of mucosal abnormality».
Rodrigo L, Garrote JA, Vivas S (6 de septiembre de 2008). «Celiac disease». Med Clin (Barc) (Revisión) 131 (7): 264-70. PMID18775218. doi:10.1016/S0025-7753(08)72247-4. «Estos marcadores presentan en general una elevada sensibilidad y especificidad (cercanas al 90 %) en presencia de atrofia marcada de las vellosidades intestinales. Sin embargo, muestran una notable disminución de la sensibilidad (del orden del 40-50 %) en casos con atrofia vellositaria leve o cambios mínimos».
Lewis NR, Scott BB (1 de julio de 2006). «Systematic review: the use of serology to exclude or diagnose coeliac disease (a comparison of the endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibody tests)». Aliment Pharmacol Ther (Revisión) 24 (1): 47-54. PMID16803602. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02967.x. «Both the endomysial antibody and tissue transglutaminase antibody have very high sensitivities (93% for both) and specificities (>99% and >98% respectively) for the diagnosis of typical coeliac disease with villous atrophy. (...) As the detection of at least partial villous atrophy was used to make a diagnosis of coeliac disease in the vast majority of studies, we can't assume that the same LRs apply to coeliac patients with lesser abnormality such as an increase in intraepithelial lymphocytes or electron-microscopic changes only. In fact, if such lesser abnormalities were used as criteria for diagnosing (and excluding) coeliac disease, the sensitivity of the tests could be lower (i.e. more false negatives), especially since a number of studies suggest that the EMA and tTG antibody tests are less sensitive with lesser degrees of mucosal abnormality».
worldgastroenterology.org
World Gastroenterology Organization, ed. (August 2015). «Inflammatory Bowel Disease». Consultado el 13 de marzo de 2016.
