Why Is There Medical Inertia and Nihilism to Celiac Disease? Comment on Pivetta et al. In Elderly Anemic Patients without Endoscopic Signs of Bleeding Are Duodenal Biopsies Always Necessary to Rule out Celiac Disease?

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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Coeliac Disease and Microscopic Colitis: The Largest Study Assessing Prognosis and Risk of Hospital Admission.Nutrients · 2024
   Article
2. No Danger for Medical Interest and Awareness towards Celiac Disease. Reply to Greenaway et al. Why Is There Medical Inertia and Nihilism to Celiac Disease? Comment on "Pivetta et al. In Elderly Anemic Patients without Endoscopic Signs of Bleeding Are Duodenal Biopsies Always Necessary to Rule Out Celiac Disease?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract