IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0258501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The accuracy of diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Martha M C Elwenspoek
  • Joni Jackson
  • Rachel O’Donnell
  • Anthony Sinobas
  • Sarah Dawson
  • Hazel Everitt
  • Peter Gillett
  • Alastair D Hay
  • Deborah L Lane
  • Susan Mallett
  • Gerry Robins
  • Jessica C Watson
  • Hayley E Jones
  • Penny Whiting

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) is around 1%, but diagnosis is challenged by varied presentation and non-specific symptoms and signs. This study aimed to identify diagnostic indicators that may help identify patients at a higher risk of CD in whom further testing is warranted. Methods: International guidance for systematic review methods were followed and the review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020170766). Six databases were searched until April 2021. Studies investigating diagnostic indicators, such as symptoms or risk conditions, in people with and without CD were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Summary sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were estimated for each diagnostic indicator by fitting bivariate random effects meta-analyses. Findings: 191 studies reporting on 26 diagnostic indicators were included in the meta-analyses. We found large variation in diagnostic accuracy estimates between studies and most studies were at high risk of bias. We found strong evidence that people with dermatitis herpetiformis, migraine, family history of CD, HLA DQ2/8 risk genotype, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, or chronic liver disease are more likely than the general population to have CD. Symptoms, psoriasis, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, fractures, type 2 diabetes, and multiple sclerosis showed poor diagnostic ability. A sensitivity analysis revealed a 3-fold higher risk of CD in first-degree relatives of CD patients. Conclusions: Targeted testing of individuals with dermatitis herpetiformis, migraine, family history of CD, HLA DQ2/8 risk genotype, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, or chronic liver disease could improve case-finding for CD, therefore expediting appropriate treatment and reducing adverse consequences. Migraine and chronic liver disease are not yet included as a risk factor in all CD guidelines, but it may be appropriate for these to be added. Future research should establish the diagnostic value of combining indicators.

Suggested Citation

  • Martha M C Elwenspoek & Joni Jackson & Rachel O’Donnell & Anthony Sinobas & Sarah Dawson & Hazel Everitt & Peter Gillett & Alastair D Hay & Deborah L Lane & Susan Mallett & Gerry Robins & Jessica C Wa, 2021. "The accuracy of diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258501
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258501
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258501&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0258501?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258501. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.