This Academy member benefit temporarily has been made public to allow all practitioners access to content that may assist in patient care during the national pandemic response. Click here for information on joining the Academy. 

MNT: Gastrointestinal Disorders (2015

Citation:

 Simpson S, Thompson T. Nutrition assessment in celiac disease. Gastrointest Endoscopy Clin N Amer. 2012; 22: 797-809.

PubMed ID: 23083994
 
Study Design:
Medical Opinion
Class:
X - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Neutral NEUTRAL: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:
To explain the process of nutrition assessment  in individuals with celiac disease.
Inclusion Criteria:
Not applicable.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not applicable.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Not applicable.

Design

Not applicable.

Data Collection Summary:

The authors only provided professional and consensus opinions on medical nutrition therapy for celiac disease treatment. No specific methods were discussed on how the literature was reviewed and synthesized for this article. 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

No specific sample population data was collected. The authors provided medical nutrition therapy for the treatment of the general celiac disease population.

Summary of Results:

Key Findings

The authors described the referral, nutrition assessment process, gluten-free diet education, monitoring and follow-up  for patients with celiac disease. They also discussed the potential cross-contamination and quality concerns of a gluten-free diet.

Author Conclusion:
Nutrition assessment is the first step in the nutrition care process for individuals with celiac disease. A gluten-free diet is the only treatment for celiac disease. Assessment of dietary intake must be thorough and conducted by a dietitian with expertise in celiac disease. Follow-up by the dietitian is necessary.
Funding Source:
Reviewer Comments:
  • This article identified the details of ensuring a thorough dietary assessment was made and provided a checklist for practitioners to use when assessing celiac patients
  • Types of medical procedures that the dietitian should review to assist in the assessment were presented
  • A list of items necessary to review with celiac patients as part of the nutrition intervention or education were presented
  • Information on what to look for on food labels and an explanation of food regulations were provided
  • The nutritional quality of the gluten-free diet was presented with emphasis on nutrients that may be lacking when compliant with the diet. Recommendations were made as to how to compensate. Patients should meet with a dietitian with special knowledge in this area.
  • Areas of food contamination with gluten were explained, as well as how to handle these problems
  • No specific methods were discussed on how the literature was selected, reviewed, abstracted and synthesized. No discussion on the study quality or validity for studies were referenced.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? Yes
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? Yes
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? No
 
Validity Questions
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? ???
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? No
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? No
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? No
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? No
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? No
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? No
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? No
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? No
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes