Table 2.

Prevalence of CD detected by screening in patients presenting with low bone mineral density

AUTHOR, YEAR, COUNTRYT-SCORESAMPLE SIZEFEMALE SEX, %AGE, YSCREENING ALGORITHMBIOPSY CRITERIACD PREVALENCE (95% CI), %
Drummond et al,52 2003, Ireland≤ −1.0366100Mean 56 (SD 11.5; range 28–96)IgA EMA and IgA tTGNA2.2 (1.1–4.2)
González et al,53 2002, Argentina< −2.5127100Mean 68 (range 50–82)1. IgA AGA
2. IgA EMA
Marsh III0.8 (0.02–4.31)
Lindh et al,54 1992, SwedenNA9291Mean 66 (SD 12)IgA AGANA3.3 (1.1–9.1)
Mather et al,55 2001, Canada≤ −1.09681Mean 57 (range 18–86)IgA EMANA0 (0–3.8)
Nuti et al,56 2001, Italy≤ −2.5255100Mean 66 (SD 8.5)1. IgA AGA
2. IgA tTG
NA2.3 (1.1–5.0)
Sanders et al,57 2005, United Kingdom≤ −1.067495Mean 53 (range 21–69)IgA AGA and IgA EMAESPGHAN1.5 (0.8–2.7)
Stenson et al,58 2005, United States≤ −2.526690Mean 57 (SD 12)IgA EMA and IgA tTGMarsh III3.4 (1.8–6.3)
Karakan et al,59 2007, Turkey≤ −1.013590Mean 57.2 (range 24–81)IgA EMANA0 (0–2.7)
  • AGA—antigliadin antibody, CD—celiac disease, EMA—endomysial antibody, ESPGHAN—European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Ig—immunoglobulin, NA—not available, tTG—tissue transglutaminase.