ArticleEndoscopy international open2017
Factors associated with number of duodenal samples obtained in suspected celiac disease.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Duodenal bulb biopsy in the diagnostic work-up of coeliac disease.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsMany people with celiac disease are undiagnosed and there is evidence that insufficient duodenal samples may contribute to underdiagnosis. The aims of this study were to investigate whether more samples leads to a greater likelihood of a diagnosis of celiac disease and to elucidate factors that influence the number of samples collected. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe identified patients from two community hospitals who were undergoing duodenal biopsy for indications (as identified by International Classification of Diseases code) compatible with possible celiac disease. Three cohorts were evaluated: no celiac disease (NCD, normal villi), celiac disease (villous atrophy, Marsh score 3), and possible celiac disease (PCD, Marsh score < 3). Endoscopic features, indication, setting, trainee presence, and patient demographic details were evaluated for their role in sample collection.
results5997 patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients with a final diagnosis of celiac disease had a median of 4 specimens collected. The percentage of patients diagnosed with celiac disease with one sample was 0.3 % compared with 12.8 % of those with six samples (
conclusionsHistological diagnosis of celiac disease significantly increased with six samples. Multiple factors influenced whether adequate biopsies were taken. Adherence to guidelines may increase the diagnosis rate of celiac disease.
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.