SynthesisLupus science & medicine2024
Prevalence of coeliac disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lupus science & medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and the Risk of Coeliac Disease: Substantial Discrepancies Among Studies Highlight a Significant Research Gap.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2026Review
- Human Transglutaminases: Updated Insights into Activation Mechanisms, Allosteric Regulation and Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Frequency of Celiac Disease in a Cross-Sectional, JIA-Predominant Cohort of Children with Rheumatologic Diseases.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2026Article
- Dietary Intervention for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus patients based on HLA-DQ2 and DQ8 genotyping (DISH): a protocol for a randomised controlled study.Lupus science & medicine · 2025Article
- Prevalence of Joint Complaints in Patients with Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is some evidence of a higher prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) among patients with SLE than in the general population. However, the prevalence estimates vary substantially.
objectiveTo investigate the prevalence of CD among patients with SLE through systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsWe performed searches in the databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science Core Collection between 1 January 1990 and 9 July 2023. A total of 2053 publications were rendered in the searches, of which 68 were reviewed in full text and 14 included in the analyses. Primary analysis estimated the pooled prevalence of biopsy-verified CD in patients with SLE. In the secondary analysis, the prevalence of serological markers indicative of CD was investigated. The quality of studies was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. We conducted meta-regression analyses to investigate associations between the prevalence of CD in individuals with SLE and publication year, study population size, CD prevalence in the general population, proportion of females and quality assessment score.
resultsA total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 11 were included in the primary analysis of biopsy-verified CD. Among 1238 patients with SLE, 14 had CD. The weighted pooled prevalence of CD was 0.7% (95% CI 0.0 to 1.8). The weighted pooled prevalence of CD serological markers in 1063 patients with SLE was 3.7% (95% CI 1.4 to 6.7). In meta-regression analyses, no associations between CD prevalence and study characteristics, demographics and quality assessment scores were found.
conclusionsIn this meta-analysis, we found a weighted pooled prevalence of biopsy-verified CD in patients with SLE comparable with the prevalence in the general population. Our findings do not support routine screening for CD in patients with SLE. However, individual screening could be considered in cases of clinical suspicion and additional risk factors for CD. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022339594.
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.