SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2019
Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Burden of Celiac Disease.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mass Screening Strategies for Celiac Disease in Apparently Healthy Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Carrier frequency of HLA-DQB1*02 allele in patients affected with celiac disease: A systematic review assessing the potential rationale of a targeted allelic genotyping as a first-line screening.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Work Impairment in Patients with Celiac Disease and Its Relationship with Persistence of Symptoms, Dietary Adherence, Quality of Life, and Psychological Morbidity.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Estimating the costs of delayed Celiac disease diagnosis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Celiac Disease in Medical Education: A Pilot Study Comparing Institutional and Commercial Curricula.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Hub-and-Spoke regional system supported by telehealth for managing coeliac disease in Liguria: a mixed-methods survey followed by an observational pilot study.BMC health services research · 2025Observational
- Commentary: Prevalence and incidence of celiac disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a case-control study based on the RECORD cohort.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Burden of coeliac disease in Germany: real-world insights from a large retrospective health insurance claims database analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Coeliac Disease Case-Control Study: Has the Time Come to Explore beyond Patients at Risk?Nutrients · 2023Article
- Quantification of Celiac Disease Severity Using Video Capsule Endoscopy: A Comparison of Human Experts and Machine Learning Algorithms.Current medical imaging · 2023Article
- The global burden of coeliac disease: opportunities and challenges.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Review
- Society for the Study of Celiac Disease position statement on gaps and opportunities in coeliac disease.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2021Article
- Gluten in pharmaceutical products: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Reliability of the Multiplex CytoBead CeliAK Immunoassay to Assess Anti-tTG IgA for Celiac Disease Screening.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Gluten-Free Casein-Free Diet for Autism Spectrum Disorders: Can It Be Effective in Solving Behavioural and Gastrointestinal Problems?The Eurasian journal of medicine · 2020Review
- Preparation and Characterization of Avenin-Enriched Oat Protein by Chill Precipitation for Feeding Trials in Celiac Disease.Frontiers in nutrition · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of celiac disease (CD) has rapidly increased over recent decades, but costs related to CD remain poorly quantified.
objectiveThis systematic review assessed the economic burden of CD in North America and Europe.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify English-language literature from 2007 to 2018 that assessed costs, cost effectiveness, and health resource utilization for CD.
resultsForty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 28 (57.1%) addressed costs of testing and diagnosis; 33 (67.3%) were from Europe. The cost per positive CD diagnosis of testing patients already undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy for other indications ranged from 1300 Canadian dollars ($Can) in Canada (2016 value) to €44,712 in the Netherlands (2013 value). Adding the CD test was cost effective when it combined diagnostic modalities (e.g., serology and biopsy). Direct annual excess costs to a US payer per diagnosed CD patient totaled $US6000 (2013 value) more than for a person without CD, chiefly due to outpatient care. Hospitalizations, emergency visits, and medication use were more common with CD. After initiating a gluten-free diet (GFD), patients visited primary care providers less often, used more medications, and missed fewer days from school and work.
conclusionsMost of the few available economic studies of CD assess testing and diagnosis costs, especially in Europe. Methods of testing generally are considered cost effective when they combine diagnostic modalities in symptomatic patients. Most costs to a payer of managing CD derive from outpatient care. Following GFD initiation, patients lose fewer days from work and school than pretreatment.
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.