| Autor: |
Ribeiro CDS; Department of Nutrition, University of Brasília, Brasília 70910-900, Brazil., Uenishi RH; Department of Nutrition, University of Brasília, Brasília 70910-900, Brazil.; Brasilia University Hospital, University of Brasília, Brasília 70840-901, Brazil., Domingues ADS; Brasilia University Hospital, University of Brasília, Brasília 70840-901, Brazil., Nakano EY; Department of Statistics, University of Brasília, Brasilia 70910-900, Brazil., Botelho RBA; Department of Nutrition, University of Brasília, Brasília 70910-900, Brazil., Raposo A; CBIOS (Research Center for Biosciences and Health Technologies), Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024 Lisboa, Portugal., Zandonadi RP; Department of Nutrition, University of Brasília, Brasília 70910-900, Brazil. |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Zdroj: |
Nutrients [Nutrients] 2024 Jul 26; Vol. 16 (15). Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 26. |
| DOI: |
10.3390/nu16152428 |
| Abstrakt: |
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. |
| Databáze: |
MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
