Detection of Celiac Disease in Primary Care: A Multicenter Case-Finding Study in North America

Abstract

This study demonstrates that an active case-finding strategy in the primary care setting is an effective means to improve the diagnostic rate of CD in North America.

Clinical and Immunologic Features of Ultra-Short Celiac Disease

“…This may have resulted in an overestimate of the prevalence of celiac disease in some patient groups however rates of celiac disease in different patient cohorts are similar to previous case finding studies reported in the literature. [27][28][29] Furthermore this increased prevalence did allow us to accrue significant numbers of patients with USCD to allow for effective comparison of patient phenotypes.…”

Screening for Celiac Disease in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…We therefore included data from the fully published paper (26), in lieu of the abstract data (58). There were another 4514 subjects identified in 14 studies (16,17,26,(59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67)(68)(69) from the previous meta-analysis, of whom 2406 met diagnostic criteria for IBS. In total, therefore, the 36 studies recruited 15,256 individuals, of whom 9275 (60.8%) met diagnostic criteria for IBS.…”

“…Thirteen of these studies were identified in the previous literature search (16,17,26,(59)(60)(61)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67)(68)(69), with the remaining 19 studies identified in the updated search (25, 37-42, 44-48, 50, 51, 53-57). The pooled prevalence of a positive EMA and/or tTG was 2.6% (95% CI 1.6% to 3.8%) ( Table 2), but with significant heterogeneity between studies (I 2 = 89.5%, P < 0.001).…”

“…Seven of these studies were identified in the previous literature search (16,17,26,62,63,68,69). The remaining 15 studies were identified in the updated search (37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 48-57).…”

Predictors of Family Risk for Celiac Disease: A Population-Based Study

“…12,13,14 Widespread availability of accurate serology for CD facilitates case-finding noninvasively. 15,16 The tissue transglutaminase (tTGA) test is sensitive (>90%) and specific (∼95%) for CD, while endomysial (EMA) test has a variable sensitivity (75-90%) but high specificity (100%). 17,18 Testing both antibodies may improve detection rate.…”