ArticleIrish journal of medical science2019
Coeliac screening in a high-risk population: paediatric type 1 diabetes-a review of current guidelines and practice.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Implications of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Associated with Coeliac Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Nutritional Status and Metabolism in Celiac Disease: Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Does a Gluten-Free Diet Affect BMI and Glycosylated Hemoglobin in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes and Asymptomatic Celiac Disease? A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsCoeliac disease (CD) is more common in those with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and may be asymptomatic despite the presence of intestinal histological changes. Optimal screening practice guidelines differ internationally. We undertook a retrospective audit to determine the efficacy of current screening practice for CD in T1DM in our centre.
methodsAll children and adolescents < 16 years, diagnosed with T1DM in our service and continuing to attend the service in January 2017 were included. Data on CD screening was collected and compared to current NICE, NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN guidelines.
resultsOf the 355 patients attending our service, 253 attended from T1DM diagnosis and all had CD screening performed in our centre. In 37 of 253 patients, IgA-TTG was positive, providing a cumulative prevalence of 14.6%. Of these, 31(83.78%) with an elevated TTG on screening had no recorded gastrointestinal symptoms or CD-related clinical signs. Of the 35 TTG plus EMA-positive patients, 22/35 (59.46%) had diagnostic endoscopic biopsy. Nineteen (83.4%) had CD confirmed, 1 (4.54%) had negative biopsy and 2 (9%) had equivocal, non-diagnostic changes.
conclusionsTimely diagnosis of CD can prevent chronic ill health in affected individuals, and in patients with T1DM, CD is an independent risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality. Given the high prevalence of atypical symptoms and silent CD in those with T1DM, in this and other studies, and the benefits of detection and treatment of CD, screening is essential. Large-scale data collection allowing for the development of evidence-based guidelines is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29855860What 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.