4.6 Article

The prevalence of celiac disease in Europe: Results of a centralized, international mass screening project

期刊

ANNALS OF MEDICINE
卷 42, 期 8, 页码 587-595

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/07853890.2010.505931

关键词

-

资金

  1. Commission of the European Communities
  2. RTD program 'Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources'
  3. Research Council for Health, Academy of Finland
  4. [QLRT-1999-00037]
  5. ESRC [ES/G007438/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G007438/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. Although the prevalence of celiac disease (CD) has been extensively investigated in recent years, an accurate estimate of CD frequency in the European population is still lacking. The aims of this study were: 1) to establish accurately the prevalence of CD in a large sample of the European population (Finland, Germany, Italy, and UK), including both children and adults; and 2) to investigate whether the prevalence of CD significantly varies between different areas of the European continent. Materials and methods. Samples were drawn from the four populations. All 29,212 participants were tested for CD by tissue transglutaminase (tTG) antibody test. Positive and border-line findings were further tested for serum endomysial antibodies (EMA). All serological determinations were centrally performed. Small-bowel biopsies were recommended to autoantibody-positive individuals. Previously diagnosed cases were identified. Results. The overall CD prevalence (previously diagnosed plus anti-tTG and EMA positives) was 1.0% (95% CI 0.9-1.1). In subjects aged 30-64 years CD prevalence was 2.4% in Finland (2.0-2.8), 0.3% in Germany (0.1-0.4), and 0.7% in Italy (0.4-1.0). Sixty-eight percent of antibody-positive individuals showed small-bowel mucosal changes typical for CD (Marsh II/III lesion). Conclusions. CD is common in Europe. CD prevalence shows large unexplained differences in adult age across different European countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据