SynthesisNutrients2024
Gluten-Free Diet Adherence Tools for Individuals with Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tools Compared to Laboratory Tests.
Synthesis in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with adherence to gluten-free diet among celiac patients in Palestine: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Validation of a Tool to Assess Disease-Related Knowledge in Children with Coeliac Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Cultural Adaptation and Reliability Testing of the Coeliac Disease Food Attitudes and Behaviours Scale in Brazil.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Celiac Dietary Adherence Test.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Neighborhood Socioeconomic Deprivation Associates with Decreased Serologic Normalization Rates in Pediatric Celiac Disease.The Journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Use of technology to educate patients with celiac disease.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2025Review
- Celiac Disease: Beyond Diet and Food Awareness.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Healthy Nutrition as the Key Reference in Special Diets, Quality of Life, and Sustainability.Nutrients · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to find the tool that best predicts celiac individuals' adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD). The Transparent Reporting of Multivariable Prediction Models for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD-SRMA) guideline was used for the construction and collection of data from eight scientific databases (PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, LIVIVO, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Proquest) on 16 November 2023. The inclusion criteria were studies involving individuals with celiac disease (CD) who were over 18 years old and on a GFD for at least six months, using a questionnaire to predict adherence to a GFD, and comparing it with laboratory tests (serological tests, gluten immunogenic peptide-GIP, or biopsy). Review articles, book chapters, and studies without sufficient data were excluded. The Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies (CHARMS) was used for data collection from the selected primary studies, and their risk of bias and quality was assessed using the Prediction Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). The association between the GFD adherence determined by the tool and laboratory test was assessed using the phi contingency coefficient. The studies included in this review used four different tools to evaluate GFD adherence: BIAGI score, Coeliac Dietary Adherence Test (CDAT), self-report questions, and interviews. The comparison method most often used was biopsy (n = 19; 59.3%), followed by serology (n = 14; 43.7%) and gluten immunogenic peptides (GIPs) (n = 4; 12.5%). There were no significant differences between the interview, self-report, and BIAGI tools used to evaluate GFD adherence. These tools were better associated with GFD adherence than the CDAT. Considering their cost, application time, and prediction capacity, the self-report and BIAGI were the preferred tools for evaluating GFD adherence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.