ArticleBJGP open2019
Determining whether coeliac disease case-finding in primary care is better than random testing: a retrospective study.
Article in BJGP open, 2019. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver 75% of patients (approximately half a million) with coeliac disease in the UK have not been formally diagnosed.
aimTo determine if case-finding of coeliac disease is better than random testing in primary care. DESIGN &
settingA pragmatic study looked at all referrals across a 12-month period (December 2013-November 2014) for coeliac serology testing and the indications for testing across 38 GP practices in a well-defined geographical area in North Yorkshire. There was further follow-up for an additional 12 months to determine conversion of positive serology to duodenal biopsy.
methodAll serology samples sent into York Hospital biochemistry department during the study period were analysed for the indication for testing. Positive results were cross-referenced for duodenal biopsies over the following 12 months on the York Hospital pathology database.
resultsCase-finding of coeliac patients in primary care is no better than random testing of the population. Only 71% of patients with positive serology went on to have a duodenal biopsy in the following 12 months.
conclusionMore education of the population and of primary care physicians is needed around the indications for checking for coeliac disease. It may be that primary care is not the best place to case-find patients with coeliac disease.
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.