ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Gaps and Disparities in Celiac Disease Screening: A Nationwide Analysis of a High-Risk Pediatric Population.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeDespite established screening guidelines for celiac disease (CeD) targeting high-risk groups, many people remain undiagnosed, leading to potential long-term health consequences. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to CeD screening guidelines among children with high-risk conditions.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis utilizing United States (US) private payer claims data from 2007 to 2022 to identify children ≤ 20 years who met screening criteria for CeD. All children had at least one high-risk condition recommended for CeD screening by professional organizations. Those with a history of CeD were excluded. We used descriptive statistics and chi-square tests to assess the presence of CeD screening by age group, race, and condition to determine the value of screening results by race. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with CeD screening.
resultsAmong 223,449 children with high-risk conditions, only 10.0% were screened. Patients with a family history of CeD had the highest likelihood of being screened (55.49%). Non-White children were screened less frequently than White children (p < .0001), which held true when stratifying by most screening conditions. Children aged < 11 years were screened less frequently than their older peers (p < .0001). In a multivariable model, age and racial disparities in screening persisted.
conclusionOur findings highlight significant gaps in adherence to CeD screening guidelines, particularly among younger and Non-White children, underscoring the need for improved awareness and implementation of screening practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41109938What 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.