4.3 Article

Red cell distribution width as a marker of coeliac disease: a prospective study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 177-181

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00042737-200202000-00012

Keywords

anaemia; anti-endomysium antibodies; coeliac disease; EmA; RDW; red cell distribution width; screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Coeliac disease is frequently underdiagnosed because of its protean presentations. Serological tests may be helpful in screening programmes for populations at risk, but they are costly. Aim To determine prospectively whether a commonly available haematological test such as the red cell distribution width (RDW) could be of help in detecting unrecognized coeliac disease. Methods Of 353 consecutive adult patients referred to our outpatient malabsorption clinic, 198 in whom clinical suspicion was strong were referred for further investigations and intestinal biopsy. Seventy-six inflammatory bowel disease outpatients and 90 subjects admitted for diseases other than malabsorption were enrolled as the control group. Results RDW was increased in 94 (47.4%) and normal in 104 (52.5%) of 198 patients. Duodenal biopsy confirmed coeliac disease in 80 (85.1%) of the former patients and 69 (66.3%) of the latter patients. No correlation between RDW values and histological scores was found. Overall RDW increase was found in 80/149 (53.7%) patients with a definite diagnosis of coeliac disease, and in 14/49 (28.6%) patients in whom biopsy excluded the disease. A 1-year gluten withdrawal led to a significant decrease in RDW value, even in patients with obdurate mucosal impairment. Conclusions In patients in whom there is a strong clinical suspicion of coeliac disease, an elevated RDW despite normal haemoglobin concentration may be a reliable predictor of the disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:177-181 (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

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