Cited by 76Celiac Disease Research and ManagementFood composition and propertiesWheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology

Wheat‐starch‐based gluten‐free products in the treatment of newly detected coeliac disease: prospective and randomized study

Peräaho, M., Kaukinen, K., Paasikivi, K., Sievänen, H., Lohiniemi, S., Mäki, M., Collin, P.·2003·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Background The safety of wheat-starch-based gluten-free products in the treatment of coeliac disease is debatable. Prospective studies are lacking. Aim : To compare the clinical, histological and serological response to a wheat-starch-based or natural gluten-free diet in patients with newly detected coeliac disease. Methods Fifty-seven consecutive adults with untreated coeliac disease were randomized to a wheat-starch-based or natural gluten-free diet. Clinical response, small bowel mucosal morphology, CD3+, alphabeta+ and gammadelta+ intra-epithelial lymphocytes, mucosal human leucocyte antigen-DR expression and serum endomysial, transglutaminase and gliadin antibodies were investigated before and 12 months after the introduction of the gluten-free diet. Quality of life measurements were performed by standardized questionnaires and the bone mineral density was analysed. Results In both groups, abdominal symptoms were alleviated equally by a strict diet. There were no differences between the groups in mucosal morphology, the density of intra-epithelial lymphocytes, serum antibodies, bone mineral density or quality of life tests at the end of the study. Four patients on a natural gluten-free diet and two on a wheat-starch-based gluten-free diet had dietary lapses; as a result, inadequate mucosal, serological and clinical recovery was observed. Conclusions The dietary response to a wheat-starch-based gluten-free diet was as good as that to a natural gluten-free diet in patients…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01425.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peräaho, M., Kaukinen, K., Paasikivi, K., Sievänen, H., Lohiniemi, S., Mäki, M., & Collin, P.
Affiliations
  • Tampere University Hospital (FI)
  • Finnish Coeliac Society (FI)
Corresponding author
Collin, P.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-02
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
587-594
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
OpenAlex
W2037722164
Cited by
76
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Yrjö Jahnssonin Säätiö
  • Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale
  • Tays
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Celiac Disease Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Wheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
Keywords
celiac disease, dietary adherence, dietary lapses, intraepithelial lymphocytes, HLA-DR expression, anti-endomysial antibodies, anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies, anti-gliadin antibodies, bone mineral density, quality of life, abdominal symptoms
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Celiac Disease, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay, Female, Health Status, Humans, Immunoglobulin A, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Starch, Triticum, Bone Density

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