SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Accuracy of glutamic acid decarboxylase antibodies for the identification of adult-onset type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The glutamic acid decarboxylase autoantibody (GADA) test is a widely used marker to differentiate type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes in adults. We conducted a systematic review to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the presence of GADA for T1D in adults with newly diagnosed diabetes. Methods: We conducted a PubMed and Embase search for studies that report both the GADA result and type 1 versus type 2 diabetes in adults diagnosed with diabetes. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for each study. Results: We identified 19 studies involving 11,760 patients from diverse geographic settings. Across these studies, the sensitivity of GADA for identifying adult-onset type 1 diabetes varied widely (range: 0.27 to 0.83), with a pooled estimate of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.46-0.60). In contrast, specificity was consistently high, with a pooled estimate of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89-0.96). The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 7.3 (95% CI 4.8 to 11.3) and 0.51 (0.44 to 0.58), respectively. Discussion: Our review demonstrates that GADA has high specificity and moderate sensitivity for identifying adult-onset type 1 diabetes. As a limitation, factors such as assay choice and cut-off values, as well as heterogeneity of both the type 1 and type 2 diabetes groups with regard to unmeasured genetic influences may contribute to the variability in antibody prevalence between studies. Our pooled likelihood ratios for GADA results might be useful for developing clinical and algorithmic tools to distinguish adult-onset type 1 diabetes from type 2 diabetes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.