Pediatric Celiac Disease Patients Who Are Lost to Follow-Up Have a Poorly Controlled Disease
Abstract
Background Follow-up of celiac disease (CD) patients is recommended for gluten-free diet (GFD) adherence monitoring and complication detection. We recently showed that 35% of children with CD were lost to follow-up (LTFU). We aimed to characterize LTFU population, and thus identify compliance barriers to GFD and follow-up. Methods 50 LTFU patients were investigated using a telephone questionnaire, regarding frequency of follow-up, serology testing, and adherence to GFD (using the validated Biagi score). Fifty two regular follow-up patients served as controls. Results LTFU patients had poor adherence to GFD (average Biagi score of 2.0 ± 1.4) compared to controls (3.0 ± 1.0, p Conclusion LTFU is associated with non-adherence to GFD and positive serology. Risk factors for LFTU should be identified and addressed in order to improve patient care.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet has a positive impact on the improvement of symptoms in coeliac disease.
“Strict adherence to GFD has a positive impact on the improvement of symptoms (10)”
From ESPGHAN Position Paper on Management and Follow-up of Children and Adolescents With Celiac Disease. (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
Inconsistent or no follow-up is associated with poor dietary adherence.
“Inconsistent or no follow-up is associated with poor dietary adherence (10).”
From ESPGHAN Position Paper on Management and Follow-up of Children and Adolescents With Celiac Disease. (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
Strict adherence to a gluten-free diet may also allow prevention of coeliac disease-associated complications.
“and it may also allow prevention of CDassociated complications.”
From ESPGHAN Position Paper on Management and Follow-up of Children and Adolescents With Celiac Disease. (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
Members of CD patients' associations may benefit by receiving psychosocial support by peer groups, which in turn may ensure better adherence to the diet and outcome.
“Members of CD patients' associations may benefit by receiving psychosocial support by peer groups, which in turn may ensure better adherence to the diet and outcome (10).”
From ESPGHAN Position Paper on Management and Follow-up of Children and Adolescents With Celiac Disease. (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 8 · Cited by 55
- Authors
- Barnea, L., Mozer-Glassberg, Y., Hojsak, I., Hartman, C., & Shamir, R.
- Affiliations
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- University of Zagreb (HR)
- Venue
- Digestion
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 248-253
- ISSN
- 0012-2823 (ISSN-L)
- 1421-9867
- OpenAlex
- W2026680774
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 2.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Digestion (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Celiac Disease Research and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Eosinophilic Esophagitis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
- Keywords
- pediatric celiac disease, loss to follow-up, gluten-free diet adherence, celiac serology, disease control, age at diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Celiac Disease, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Patient Compliance, Regression Analysis, Multivariate Analysis, Case-Control Studies, Young Adult, Lost to Follow-Up
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
