4.3 Article

Coeliac Disease Diagnosis: ESPGHAN 1990 Criteria or Need For a Change? Results of a Questionnaire

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31822a00bb

Keywords

coeliac disease diagnosis; ESPGHAN 1990 criteria; questionnaire

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives: A revision of criteria for diagnosing coeliac disease (CD) is being conducted by The European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN). In parallel, we have performed a survey aimed to evaluate present practices for CD among paediatric gastroenterologists and to learn their views on the need for modification of present criteria for CD diagnosis. Patients and Methods: Questionnaires were distributed to experienced paediatric gastroenterologists (ESPGHAN members) via the Internet. Results: Overall, 95 valid questionnaires were available for analysis, pertaining to 28 different countries, with the majority of responders treating patients with CD for >15 years. Only about 12% of the responders comply with present criteria, noncompliance being related mainly to the challenge policy. Approximately 90% request a revision and modification of the present criteria. Forty-four percent want to omit the small bowel biopsy in symptomatic children with positive anti-tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin (Ig) A or endomysial IgA antibodies, especially if they are DQ2/DQ8 positive. For silent cases detected by screening with convincingly positive anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA or EMA IgA, about 30% consider that no small bowel biopsy should be required in selected cases. Adding human leukocyte antigen typing in the diagnostic workup was asked for by 42% of the responders. As for gluten challenge, a new policy is advocated restricting its obligation to cases whenever the diagnosis is doubtful or unclear. Conclusions: Based on these opinions, revision of the ESPGHAN criteria for diagnosing CD is urgently needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available