Cited by 9Celiac Disease Research and ManagementEosinophilic EsophagitisWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Optimising the follow-up of adult coeliac disease with a clinical-based score to identify patients in need of a histological reassessment: a retrospective single centre study

Open access
Harder, Gaia, Schiepatti, Annalisa, Biagi, Federico, Borrelli de Andreis, Federica, Agazzi, Simona, Gabrielli, Gian Marco, Klersy, Catherine·2020·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

Follow-up modalities for adult coeliac patients remain controversial. Non-invasive markers to identify coeliac patients on a gluten-free diet (GFD) with persistence of villous atrophy (VA) are still lacking. We aim to develop a score to stratify coeliac patients on a GFD according to their risk of having persistent VA and to tailor follow-up modalities accordingly. The clinical notes of over 700 coeliac patients attending our unit (September 1999–November 2018) were retrospectively examined. A total of 273 patients on a GFD with a histological follow-up performed 12–24 months after diagnosis were selected. We developed a bivariable model based on diet adherence and clinical response evaluated by previously validated methods. A four-level score (0·5, 1·5, 3, 4) was obtained. Patients on a strict GFD and with good clinical conditions (score 4) have a very low risk of persistence of VA (2 (95 % CI 1, 5) %). Conversely, the risk is very high (46 (95 % CI 25, 68) %) in patients with poor adherence to a GFD and unsatisfactory clinical response (score 0·5). A score of 1·5 (poor GFD adherence and persistent well-being) is linked with a high risk (23 (95 % CI 14, 36) %). Risk is intermediate (6 (95 % CI 3, 10) %) in patients scoring 3 (strict GFD and no/partial clinical improvement). Three patients who developed complications belonged to this scenario. Patients at low risk of persistent VA can be followed-up non-invasively, whereas a biopsy should be repeated in those at high/very high risk. Case-by-case evaluation is needed in patients at intermediate risk. Studies on a larger sample size are required to confirm these data.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114520000537

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.1136/bmj.h4513 · DOI
  2. 10.1093/jnci/djq564 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02621.x · DOI
  4. 10.1097/00042737-200203000-00017 · DOI
  5. Hutchinson, 2010, Long-term histological follow-up of people with coeliac disease in a UK teaching hospital, QJM, 103, 511, 10.1093/qjmed/hcq076 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03820.x · DOI
  7. 10.1111/apt.12510 · DOI
  8. 10.1080/003655201750305477 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.03992.x · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.12.032 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1038/nrgastro.2015.156 · DOI
  12. 10.1038/ajg.2013.79 · DOI
  13. 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.11.026 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.252 · DOI
  15. 10.1097/00004836-200311000-00007 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/ajg.2010.10 · DOI
  17. 10.1017/S0007114511007367 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301346 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1111/apt.12164 · DOI
  20. 10.3109/07853890.2014.913378 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.12.006 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/ajg.2015.155 · DOI
  23. 10.1038/ajg.2012.220 · DOI
  24. 10.1136/gut.30.3.333 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.dld.2017.12.001 · DOI
  26. 10.1111/apt.14101 · DOI
  27. 10.1038/ajg.2017.357 · DOI
  28. 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310148 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05554-4 · DOI
  30. 10.1111/apt.14048 · DOI
  31. 10.1186/1471-230X-14-139 · DOI
  32. 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306578 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03311.x · DOI
  34. 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308567 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Harder, G., Schiepatti, A., Biagi, F., Borrelli de Andreis, F., Agazzi, S., Gabrielli, G. M., & Klersy, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Pavia (IT)
  • Policlinico San Matteo Fondazione (IT)
Corresponding author
Biagi, Federico
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2020-02-20
Volume
123
Issue
10
Pages
1159-1164
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W3008913941
Cited by
9
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Collegio Ghislieri di Pavia
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Celiac Disease Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Eosinophilic Esophagitis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Wheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Keywords
adult celiac disease, villous atrophy, gluten-free diet adherence, clinical response, risk stratification score, follow-up strategy, non-invasive monitoring
MeSH terms
Adult, Aftercare, Atrophy, Biopsy, Celiac Disease, Duodenum, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Patient Selection, Diet, Gluten-Free

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review