Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25922671›Full record

ReviewUnited European gastroenterology journal2015

Screening for celiac disease in the general population and in high-risk groups.

Jonas F Ludvigsson, Timothy R Card, Katri Kaukinen, Julio Bai, Fabiana Zingone, David S Sanders, Joseph A Murray

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in United European gastroenterology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Celiac Disease: Beyond Diet and Food Awareness.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Jonas F LudvigssonDepartment of Paediatrics, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden ; Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Timothy R CardDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Katri KaukinenSchool of Medicine, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland ; Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland ; Department of Internal Medicine, Seinäjoki Central Hospital, Seinäjoki, Finland.
Julio BaiDepartment of Medicine, C Bonorino Udaondo Gastroenterology Hospital, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Fabiana ZingoneDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy.
David S SandersRegional GI and Liver Unit, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Joseph A MurrayDepartment of Medicine, Department of Immunology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, USA.
Karolinska Institutet · SEMayo Clinic · USRoyal Hallamshire Hospital · GBSeinäjoki University of Applied Sciences · FIUniversidad del Salvador · ARUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Salerno · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCeliac disease (CD) occurs in approximately 1% of the Western population. It is a lifelong disorder that is associated with impaired quality of life (QOL) and an excessive risk of comorbidity and death.

objectivesTo review the literature on screening for CD in relation to the current World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for mass screening.

methodsWe performed a PubMed search to identify indexed papers on CD screening with a publication date from 1900 until 1 June 2014. When we deemed an abstract relevant, we read the corresponding paper in detail.

resultsCD fulfills several WHO criteria for mass screening (high prevalence, available treatment and difficult clinical detection), but it has not yet been established that treatment of asymptomatic CD may reduce the excessive risk of severe complications, leading to higher QOL nor that it is cost-effective.

conclusionsCurrent evidence is not sufficient to support mass screening for CD, but active case-finding may be appropriate, as we recognize that most patients with CD will still be missed by this strategy. Although proof of benefit is still lacking, screening for CD may be appropriate in high-risk groups.

Indexed as

Celiac diseaseglutengluten-free dietpreventionquality of lifereviewriskscreeningWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID25922671
PMCPMC4406899
OpenAlexW2167459366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.