ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016
Early recognition of coeliac disease through community pharmacies: a proof of concept study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. 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.
- Acceptability of screening for celiac disease at Youth Health Care Centers in The Netherlands.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Gluten in pharmaceutical products: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Roles of healthcare professionals in the management of chronic gastrointestinal diseases with a focus on primary care: A systematic review.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020Article
- Coeliac disease detection with an IgA/IgG-deamidated gliadin peptide based point of care test in community pharmacies.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Article
- Early recognition of coeliac disease through community pharmacies: a proof of concept study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2017Article
- Community pharmacy COPD services: what do researchers and policy makers need to know?Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Setting Fifteen community pharmacies in the UK. Objective Proof of concept study to test the use of community pharmacies for active case finding of patients with coeliac disease. Methods Customers accessing over-the counter and prescription medicines indicated in the treatment of possible symptoms of coeliac disease over a 6 month period were offered a free point of care test. All patients were given advice regarding the test results and those who tested positive were advised to make an appointment with their general practitioner. Patients and pharmacists involved in service provision were asked to complete a satisfaction survey. Pharmacists were additionally invited to undertake interviews to better understand their views on the service. Main outcome measures Feasibility of service, acceptability to stakeholders and proportion testing positive for coeliac disease. Results Of the 551 individuals tested, 52 (9.4 %) tested positive. 277 (50.3 %) were tested for accessing irritable bowel syndrome treatment, 142 (25.8 %) due to presenting for diarrhoea. The proportion of patients testing positive with different symptoms or for different treatments were similar. Of 43 customers who returned the satisfaction survey, all would recommend the service to others, believing the community pharmacy to be a suitable location. Community pharmacists believed that it enabled them to improve relationships with their customers and that medical practices were receptive to the service. Conclusion This proof of concept study has shown that community pharmacies using a point of care test can effectively recognise and refer patients for confirmatory coeliac disease testing with high levels of customer and service provider satisfaction.
Indexed as
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.