ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2025
Patient preferences for the diagnosis of coeliac disease: A discrete choice experiment.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- European Society for the Study of Coeliac Disease 2025 Updated Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Coeliac Disease in Adults. Part 1: Diagnostic Approach.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Guideline
- Nationwide survey of coeliac disease serology testing in the UK.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for the diagnosis of coeliac disease: A discrete choice experiment.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- Beyond biopsy: evaluating noninvasive techniques to diagnose celiac disease in adults.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
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
backgroundThere is potential for a paradigm shift from a biopsy-to a serology-based diagnosis of coeliac disease in selected adult patients. However, it remains unknown if this approach would be acceptable to patients. We aimed to explore patients' preferences regarding the no-biopsy approach for coeliac disease diagnosis.
methodsWe developed a discrete choice experiment survey containing 12 different scenarios with two possible alternatives (endoscopy & biopsy or serology) to estimate patient preferences. The scenarios were based on 5 attributes: risk of false positive results, risk of missed diagnosis, waiting time to start treatment, risk of complications, discomfort, or pain. Patient preferences and the relative importance of the attributes were estimated using a mixed logit model.
resultsIn total, 385 people (70.6% female, 98.2% white) across the four nations of the United Kingdom completed the survey. Respondents preferred a serology-based diagnosis over endoscopy and duodenal biopsies (59% vs. 41%, β coefficient 1.54, p < 0.001). Diagnostic test accuracy (p < 0.001), shorter waiting time to start treatment (p < 0.001), and discomfort levels during the procedure (p < 0.001) were the most important attributes to respondents. The risk of complications, including perforation and bleeding, did not significantly influence respondents' choices. Respondents with previous endoscopy experience were more willing to undergo endoscopy compared with those who never had one.
conclusionThe no-biopsy approach to diagnosing coeliac disease is acceptable and preferred by patients over endoscopy and biopsy. Our findings highlight the importance of patient-centred care and shared decision-making in guiding diagnostic strategies for optimal patient outcomes.
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.