ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2012
Frequency of celiac disease in adult patients with typical or atypical malabsorption symptoms in isfahan, iran.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does Serum Anti-tissue Transglutaminase Level Predict Duodenal Histopathology and Clinical Manifestations of Celiac Disease in Adults?Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2025Article
- Role of Gluten-Free Diet on HbA1c Level in Children with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Celiac Disease.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Prevalence of Anti-transglutaminase 2 and 6 Antibodies in Patients with Sero-Positive Multiple Sclerosis.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2024Article
- Celiac disease in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Electronic physician · 2017Article
- Phenotypical characterization of the peripheral blood T cells in patients with celiac disease: does it differentiate suspicious celiac disease cases?Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2015Article
- Assessing of Celiac Disease and Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim. Atypical presentations of celiac disease (CD) have now been shown to be much more common than classical (typical) form. We evaluated the frequency of CD among adult patients with typical or atypical symptoms of CD. Materials and Methods. Patients referred to two outpatient gastroenterology clinics in Isfahan (IRAN) were categorized into those with typical or atypical symptoms of CD. IgA antitissue transglutaminase antibody was assessed and followed by duodenal biopsy. In patients for whom endoscopy was indicated (independent of the serology), duodenal biopsy was taken. Histopathological changes were assessed according to the Marsh classification. Results. During the study period, 151 and 173 patients with typical and atypical symptoms were evaluated (mean age = 32.8 ± 12.6 and 35.8 ± 14.8 years, 47.0% and 56.0% female, resp.). Frequency of CD in patients with typical and atypical symptoms was calculated, respectively, as 5.9% (9/151) and 1.25% (3/173) based on positive serology and pathology. The overall frequency was estimated as at least 9.2% (14/151) and 4.0% (7/173) when data of seronegative patients were also considered. Conclusions. CD is more frequent among patients with typical symptoms of malabsorption and these patients should undergo duodenal biopsy, irrespective of the serology. In patients with atypical symptoms, serological tests should be performed followed by endoscopic biopsy, and routine duodenal biopsy is recommended when endoscopic evaluation is indicated because of symptoms.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.