Insight in the diagnosis and treatment of coeliac disease in general practice: A survey and case vignette study among 106 general practitioners.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL European Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1080/13814788.2021.1985455
Maxine D Rouvroye, Pauline Slottje, Tom van Gils, Chris J Mulder, Jean W Muris, Dick Walstock, Marcel Reinders, Gerd Bouma
{"title":"Insight in the diagnosis and treatment of coeliac disease in general practice: A survey and case vignette study among 106 general practitioners.","authors":"Maxine D Rouvroye,&nbsp;Pauline Slottje,&nbsp;Tom van Gils,&nbsp;Chris J Mulder,&nbsp;Jean W Muris,&nbsp;Dick Walstock,&nbsp;Marcel Reinders,&nbsp;Gerd Bouma","doi":"10.1080/13814788.2021.1985455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coeliac disease (CD) is a highly prevalent (∼1%) disease that allegedly remains undiagnosed in over 80% of the cases because of atypical symptoms or silent disease. Currently, it is unknown how GPs deal with (suspected) CD.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to better understand the diagnostic approach and the clinical reasoning process of GPs concerning CD and concurrently address diagnostic pitfalls.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A questionnaire with case vignettes to assess the knowledge, diagnostic reasoning pattern and practice for CD by GPs was developed. It was sent through academic GP research networks (encompassing over 1500 GPs) in two large cities and to smaller practices in rural areas. The questionnaire was composed of seven background questions, 13 questions related to four case vignettes and six additional CD-related questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Responses were received from 106 GPs. Knowledge on risk factors for CD and appropriate testing of at-risk populations was limited. Twenty-two percent would diagnose CD in adults exclusively based on serology, without histopathological confirmation. In total, 99% would refer a newly diagnosed patient to a dietitian to initiate a gluten-free diet (GFD). In the absence of symptoms, only 33% would initiate a GFD.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study have given us insight into the diagnostic process of GPs encountering patient with gluten-related complaints. Multiple serology test is available and used, while a positive serology test is not always followed up by a gastroduodenal biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Most GPs would refer a symptomatic CD patient to a dietician for a GFD.</p>","PeriodicalId":54380,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of General Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8583831/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2021.1985455","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Coeliac disease (CD) is a highly prevalent (∼1%) disease that allegedly remains undiagnosed in over 80% of the cases because of atypical symptoms or silent disease. Currently, it is unknown how GPs deal with (suspected) CD.

Objectives: This study aimed to better understand the diagnostic approach and the clinical reasoning process of GPs concerning CD and concurrently address diagnostic pitfalls.

Methods: A questionnaire with case vignettes to assess the knowledge, diagnostic reasoning pattern and practice for CD by GPs was developed. It was sent through academic GP research networks (encompassing over 1500 GPs) in two large cities and to smaller practices in rural areas. The questionnaire was composed of seven background questions, 13 questions related to four case vignettes and six additional CD-related questions.

Results: Responses were received from 106 GPs. Knowledge on risk factors for CD and appropriate testing of at-risk populations was limited. Twenty-two percent would diagnose CD in adults exclusively based on serology, without histopathological confirmation. In total, 99% would refer a newly diagnosed patient to a dietitian to initiate a gluten-free diet (GFD). In the absence of symptoms, only 33% would initiate a GFD.

Conclusion: The results of this study have given us insight into the diagnostic process of GPs encountering patient with gluten-related complaints. Multiple serology test is available and used, while a positive serology test is not always followed up by a gastroduodenal biopsy to confirm the diagnosis. Most GPs would refer a symptomatic CD patient to a dietician for a GFD.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全科医生诊断和治疗乳糜泻的洞察力:对106名全科医生的调查和病例研究。
背景:乳糜泻(CD)是一种非常普遍(约1%)的疾病,据称在80%以上的病例中由于症状不典型或无症状而未被诊断。目前,全科医生如何处理(疑似)CD尚不清楚。目的:本研究旨在更好地了解全科医生对CD的诊断方法和临床推理过程,同时解决诊断缺陷。方法:采用问卷调查法,对全科医生对乳糜泻的认识、诊断推理模式和实践情况进行评估。它通过两个大城市的全科医生学术研究网络(包括1500多名全科医生)和农村地区较小的诊所发送。问卷由7个背景问题、13个与4个案例相关的问题和6个与cd相关的附加问题组成。结果:共收到106名gp的回复。对乳糜泻危险因素的了解和对高危人群的适当检测是有限的。22%的人只会根据血清学诊断成人乳糜泻,而不需要组织病理学证实。总的来说,99%的人会将新诊断的病人推荐给营养师,开始无麸质饮食(GFD)。在没有症状的情况下,只有33%的人会启动GFD。结论:本研究的结果让我们了解了全科医生遇到麸质相关疾病患者的诊断过程。多种血清学检查是可用和使用的,而阳性血清学检查并不总是随后进行胃十二指肠活检以确认诊断。大多数全科医生会将有症状的乳糜泻患者转介给营养师,让他们做GFD。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of General Practice
European Journal of General Practice PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The EJGP aims to: foster scientific research in primary care medicine (family medicine, general practice) in Europe stimulate education and debate, relevant for the development of primary care medicine in Europe. Scope The EJGP publishes original research papers, review articles and clinical case reports on all aspects of primary care medicine (family medicine, general practice), providing new knowledge on medical decision-making, healthcare delivery, medical education, and research methodology. Areas covered include primary care epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, pharmacotherapy, non-drug interventions, multi- and comorbidity, palliative care, shared decision making, inter-professional collaboration, quality and safety, training and teaching, and quantitative and qualitative research methods.
期刊最新文献
Democratising the design and delivery of large-scale randomised, controlled clinical trials in primary care: A personal view. Diagnostic flow for all patients referred with non-specific symptoms of cancer to a diagnostic centre in Denmark: A descriptive study. Monitoring COVID-19 in Belgian general practice: A tool for syndromic surveillance based on electronic health records. Evaluation of the psychometric performance of the Spanish and Catalan versions of the patient reported experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC)-Compact questionnaire. The experiences of transgender and nonbinary adults in primary care: A systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1