SynthesisUnited European gastroenterology journal2026
Dermatitis Herpetiformis in Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in United European gastroenterology journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dermatitis herpetiformis (DH) shares a pathophysiological basis with celiac disease (CD), but its epidemiology remains poorly defined. This systematic review and meta-analysis estimated the prevalence of DH among CD patients. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched. Observational studies with extractable DH data in CD patients were pooled using a random-effects model, with subgroup and meta-regression analyses. The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Checklist. Of 7271 records, 24 studies published between 1996 and 2023, comprising 73,905 patients with celiac disease and 2203 DH cases (crude prevalence: 3.0%), met the inclusion criteria. Pooled DH prevalence in CD was 6.8% (95% CI: 5.0-9.3). When restricting the analysis to nonselected populations, the pooled prevalence was 6.7% (95% CI: 4.7-9.6). Prevalence was lower in pediatric CD (2.6%, 1.4-4.5) than in adults (8.6%, 5.8-12.6). Gender-specific prevalence, based on 5 of the 24 studies and not directly comparable with the overall estimate, was 12.9% (7.0-22.7) in males and 9.6% (3.7-22.9) in females. Sensitivity analyses yielded comparable estimates across all models (range: 6%-9%), indicating that the results were consistent across different methodological assumptions and not driven by specific study characteristics. Given the very high heterogeneity (I
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.