ArticleCalcified tissue international2020
The Prevalence of Celiac Disease in a Fracture Liaison Service Population.
Article in Calcified tissue international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Dietary and Non-Dietary Management of Osteoporosis in Adult-Onset Celiac Disease: Current Status and Practical Guidance.Nutrients · 2022Review
- Bone Fragility in Gastrointestinal Disorders.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Celiac disease (CD) is a known risk factor for osteoporosis and fractures. The prevalence of CD in patients with a recent fracture is unknown. We therefore systematically screened patients at a fracture liaison service (FLS) to study the prevalence of CD. Patients with a recent fracture aged ≥ 50 years were invited to VieCuri Medical Center's FLS. In FLS attendees, bone mineral density (BMD) and laboratory evaluation for metabolic bone disorders and serological screening for CD was systematically evaluated. If serologic testing for CD was positive, duodenal biopsies were performed to confirm the diagnosis CD. Data were collected in 1042 consecutive FLS attendees. Median age was 66 years (Interquartile range (IQR) 15), 27.6% had a major and 6.9% a hip fracture, 26.4% had osteoporosis and 50.8% osteopenia. Prevalent vertebral fractures were found in 29.1%. CD was already diagnosed in two patients (0.19%), one still had a positive serology. Three other patients (0.29%) had a positive serology for CD (one with gastro-intestinal complaints). In two of them, CD was confirmed by duodenal histology (0.19%) and one refused further evaluation. The prevalence of biopsy-proven CD was therefore 0.38% (4/1042) of which 0.19% (2/1042) was newly diagnosed. The prevalence of CD in patients with a recent fracture at the FLS was 0.38% and within the range of reported prevalences in the Western-European population (0.33-1.5%). Newly diagnosed CD was only found in 0.19%. Therefore, standard screening for CD in FLS patients is not recommended.
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.