Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 403

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

Mucosal Recovery and Mortality in Adults With Celiac Disease After Treatment With a Gluten-Free Diet

Open access
Rubio-Tapia, Alberto, Rahim, Mussarat W, See, Jacalyn A, Lahr, Brian D, Wu, Tsung-Teh, Murray, Joseph A·2010·American Journal of Gastroenterology
DOI 10.1038/ajg.2010.10
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Clinical response is typically observed in most adults with celiac disease (CD) after treatment with a gluten-free diet (GFD). The rate of mucosal recovery is less certain. The aims of this study were (1) to estimate the rate of mucosal recovery after GFD in a cohort of adults with CD, and (2) to assess the clinical implications of persistent mucosal damage after GFD. METHODS: The study group included adults with biopsy-proven CD evaluated at the Mayo Clinic who had duodenal biopsies at diagnosis and at least one follow-up intestinal biopsy to assess mucosal recovery after starting a GFD. The primary outcomes of interest were mucosal recovery and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 381 adults with biopsy-proven CD, 241 (73% women) had both a diagnostic and follow-up biopsy available for re-review. Among these 241, the Kaplan-Meier rate of confirmed mucosal recovery at 2 years following diagnosis was 34% (95% confidence interval (CI): 27-40%), and at 5 years was 66% (95% CI: 58-74%). Most patients (82%) had some clinical response to GFD, but it was not a reliable marker of mucosal recovery (P=0.7). Serological response was associated with confirmed mucosal recovery (P=0.01). Poor compliance to GFD (P<0.01), severe CD defined by diarrhea and weight loss (P<0.001), and total villous atrophy at diagnosis (P<0.001) were strongly associated with persistent mucosal damage. There was a trend toward an association between achievement of mucosal recovery and a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio=0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-1.06, P=0.06), adjusted for gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal recovery was absent in a substantial portion of adults with CD after treatment with a GFD. There was a borderline significant association between confirmed mucosal recovery (vs. persistent damage) and reduced mortality independent of age and gender. Systematic follow-up with intestinal biopsies may be advisable in patients diagnosed with CD as adults.

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 · 10.1038/ajg.2010.10

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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rubio-Tapia, A., Rahim, M. W., See, J. A., Lahr, B. D., Wu, T.-T., & Murray, J. A.
Venue
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2010-06
Volume
105
Issue
6
Pages
1412-1420
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/ajg.2010.10
OpenAlex
W2044202223
Cited by
403
References
1
FWCI
21.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.