Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Survival in refractory coeliac disease and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma: retrospective evaluation of single-centre experience

Open access
Al-toma, A, Verbeek, W H M, Hadithi, M, von Blomberg, B M E, Mulder, C J J·2007·Gut

Abstract

Background: Coeliac disease may be regarded as refractory disease (RCD) when symptoms persist or recur despite strict adherence to a gluten-free diet. RCD may be subdivided into types I and II with a phenotypically normal and aberrant intraepithelial T-cell population, respectively. RCD I seems to respond well to azathioprine/prednisone therapy. RCD II is usually resistant to any known therapy and transition into enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL) is common. Aim: To provide further insight into RCD and the development of EATL, by reporting on long-term survival and risk of transition of RCD into EATL in a large cohort of patients with complicated coeliac disease. Design and Methods: Retrospective comparison of responses to therapy in four groups of patients with complicated coeliac disease: 43, RCD I; 50, RCD II (total), of whom 26 with RCD II developed EATL after a period of refractoriness to a gluten-free diet (secondary EATL) and 13 were EATL patients without preceding history of complicated coeliac disease (de novo EATL). Results: No coeliac-disease-related mortality was recognised in the RCD I group. The overall 5-year survival in the RCD I group it was 96%; in the RCD II (total) group was 58%; and in the RCD II group after developing EATL it was only 8%. The 2-year survival in the de novo EATL group was 20% versus 15% in secondary EATL group (p = 0.63). Twenty-eight (56%) of the 50 patients with RCD II died, 23 (46%) due to EATL, 4 due to a progressive refractory state with emaciation and 1 from neurocoeliac disease. Conclusion: Remarkably, no patient with RCD I developed RCD II or EATL within the mean follow-up period of 5 years (range 2–15 years). A total of 52% of the RCD II patients developed EATL within 4–6 years after the diagnosis of RCD II. More aggressive and targeted therapies seem necessary in RCD II and EATL.

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 · 10.1136/gut.2006.114512

Cites

26 of 26 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 26 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Al-toma, A., Verbeek, W. H. M., Hadithi, M., von Blomberg, B. M. E., & Mulder, C. J. J.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-04-30
Volume
56
Issue
10
Pages
1373-1378
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2113669472
Cited by
339
References
26
FWCI
19.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Survival in refractory coeliac disease and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma: retrospective evaluation of single-centre experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2006.114512
The paper
Al-toma, A., Verbeek, W. H. M., Hadithi, M., von Blomberg, B. M. E., & Mulder, C. J. J. (2007). Survival in refractory coeliac disease and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma: retrospective evaluation of single-centre experience. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2006.114512

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.