ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2023
Review and Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines of Modalities Used in the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2023. 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.
- Review
- Diagnosis and management of celiac disease.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is controversy over the recommendations for specific serological strategies implemented and the need for a biopsy to confirm celiac disease (CeD). We reviewed and appraised the current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to assess the quality and reliability of recommendations for CeD diagnosis in pediatric and adult populations. Methods: We searched databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL, between December 2010 and January 2021 for CPGs. Four independent reviewers extracted data. Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) criteria were applied by two reviewers, and a standardized score was calculated for each of the six domains. A cut-off of 60% was used to identify high-quality guidelines. Results: A total of 654 records were identified, 10 of which were eligible for data extraction. Both adult and pediatric CPGs averaged above 70% for the domains of 'scope and purpose' and 'clarity and presentation'. For 'stakeholder involvement', the mean adult and pediatric CPG scores were below the cut-off. Only one adult-focused guideline exceeded the cut-off for the 'rigour of development' domain. 'Applicability' scores were most alarming, with adult CPGs averaging 21% and pediatric CPGs averaging 23%. Conclusion: Our review and appraisal of the CPGs for the diagnosis of CeD highlight significant discrepancies in clinical recommendations and some concerns regarding methodological rigour, particularly in stakeholder engagement, rigour, and applicability. Creating a Canadian guideline of high methodological quality that overcomes these weaknesses is critical to optimize patient care and ensuring accurate diagnoses in CeD.
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.