ReviewGastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench2019
Celiac disease in Iranian irritable bowel syndrome patients; a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of Celiac Disease in Patients With Turner Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Epidemiology of Celiac Disease in Western Iran during 2019-2021.BioMed research international · 2024Article
- The Occurrence of Gluten-Related Antibodies, Sensitization to Selected Food Allergens, and Antibodies against Intrinsic Factor in Adult Patients with Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Celiac disease and gluten-free diet: past, present, and future.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe present study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence, clinical symptoms and pathological findings of celiac disease (CD) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients in Iran.
backgroundSeveral studies show high prevalence of CD in IBS patients, but the results are contradictory.
methodsThe present study was conducted based on MOOSE protocol and results were reported according to PRISMA guideline. The search was done using international online databases (Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science), national databases and Google Scholar search engine.
resultsThe pooled prevalence of CD in 2,367 Iranian IBS patients was estimated to be 6.13% (95%CI: 4.11-9.05). The prevalence of CD in men and women with IBS was 4.28% (95% CI: 2.45-7.37) and 7.19% (95% CI: 4.51-11.28), respectively. The serological prevalence of anti tTG-IgA (11 studies with 2901 IBS patients) and AGA-IgG (4 studies with 936 IBS patients) was estimated to be 5.35% (95%CI: 3.60-7.89) and 6.35% (95%CI: 2.05-18.03), respectively. The clinical symptoms of CD among IBS patients included predominant diarrhea (47.87% [95%CI: 22.46-74.43]), predominant constipation (17.34% [95%CI: 9.17-30.35]), and alternative diarrhea and constipation (27.84% [95%CI: 11.57-53.23]). According to pathological findings based on marsh classification, the prevalence of CD at stages 1, 2 and 3 were 30.89% (95%CI: 13.25-56.68), 36.56% (95%CI: 21.74-54.45) and 52.87% (95%CI: 14.48-88.13), respectively.
conclusionIn the present meta-analysis, we observed a high prevalence for CD among Iranian IBS patients, which is higher than global estimates. Examination of all IBS patients in terms of CD seems to be necessary, but cost-effectiveness should be considered
Indexed as
Identifiers
31191832PMC6536022W2948244777What 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.