ArticleThe European journal of general practice2021
Insight in the diagnosis and treatment of coeliac disease in general practice: A survey and case vignette study among 106 general practitioners.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Dedicated Celiac Disease Program Improves Celiac Quality Care Metrics and Short-Term Outcomes in Real Life.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoeliac disease (CD) is a highly prevalent (∼1%) disease that allegedly remains undiagnosed in over 80% of the cases because of atypical symptoms or silent disease. Currently, it is unknown how GPs deal with (suspected) CD.
objectivesThis study aimed to better understand the diagnostic approach and the clinical reasoning process of GPs concerning CD and concurrently address diagnostic pitfalls.
methodsA questionnaire with case vignettes to assess the knowledge, diagnostic reasoning pattern and practice for CD by GPs was developed. It was sent through academic GP research networks (encompassing over 1500 GPs) in two large cities and to smaller practices in rural areas. The questionnaire was composed of seven background questions, 13 questions related to four case vignettes and six additional CD-related questions.
resultsResponses were received from 106 GPs. Knowledge on risk factors for CD and appropriate testing of at-risk populations was limited. Twenty-two percent would diagnose CD in adults exclusively based on serology, without histopathological confirmation. In total, 99% would refer a newly diagnosed patient to a dietitian to initiate a gluten-free diet (GFD). In the absence of symptoms, only 33% would initiate a GFD.
conclusionThe results of this study have given us insight into the diagnostic process of GPs encountering patient with gluten-related complaints. Multiple serology test is available and used, while a positive serology test is not always followed up by a gastroduodenal biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Most GPs would refer a symptomatic CD patient to a dietician for a GFD.
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.