SynthesisJournal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition2026
A systematic review of celiac disease recommendations for children with Down syndrome.
Synthesis in Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of celiac disease recommendations for children with Down syndrome.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review critically compares current international guidelines and recommendations from major medical organizations on the management of celiac disease (CD) in individuals with Down syndrome (DS), in light of the increased disease prevalence and the diagnostic challenges posed by overlapping clinical and immunological features. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and international association websites (through June 1, 2025) identified guidelines, position papers, and expert statements endorsed by national or international bodies. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies, and guideline quality was assessed using the AGREE II tool. Of 929 records identified, seven clinical practice guidelines, and two clinical practice reports were included. Recommendations varied widely, ranging from universal screening (e.g., British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition [BSPGHAN], Down Syndrome Medical Interest Group [DSMIG], European Society for the Study of Coeliac Disease [ESsCD], European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition [ESPGHAN] and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition [NASPGHAN]) to symptom-based testing (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP], American Gastroenterological Association [AGA], American College of Gastroenterology [ACG], and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]). While there is consensus on serologic screening using tissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA) and total IgA, interpretation is complicated by the high prevalence of selective IgA deficiency in DS, often necessitating IgG-based testing. HLA genotyping is not generally recommended for routine screening but may help exclude CD in non-susceptible individuals and support biopsy-sparing diagnostic pathways. In conclusion, marked heterogeneity exists among current guidelines. Harmonized, evidence-based recommendations are needed. HLA-DQ2/DQ8 genotyping should be used primarily for its high negative predictive value to exclude CD in non-susceptible individuals with DS. This tiered approach offers a clinically actionable strategy to reduce diagnostic delays, minimize unnecessary procedures, and improve care equity for children with DS.
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.