https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/57689460-a74a-45be-b1a0-a3e9cd0c5d62/PubMedCentral/57689460-a74a-45be-b1a0-a3e9cd0c5d62.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2013

https://www.spg.pt/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2013-ACG_Guideline_CeliacDisease_May_2013.pdf

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease

Background: The diagnosis of pediatric-onset inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD) can be challenging in choosing the most informative diagnostic tests and correctly classifying PIBD into its different subtypes. Recent advances in our understanding of the natural history and phenotype of PIBD, increasing availability of serological and fecal biomarkers, and the emergence of novel endoscopic and imaging technologies taken together have made the previous Porto criteria for the diagnosis of PIBD obsolete. Methods: We aimed to revise the original Porto criteria using an evidencebased approach and consensus process to yield specific practice recommendations for the diagnosis of PIBD. These revised criteria are based on the Paris classification of PIBD and the original Porto criteria while incorporating novel data, such as for serum and fecal biomarkers. A consensus of at least 80% of participants was achieved for all recommendations and the summary algorithm. Results: The revised criteria depart from existing criteria by defining 2 categories of ulcerative colitis (UC, typical and atypical); atypical phenotypes of UC should be treated as UC. A novel approach based on multiple criteria for diagnosing IBD-unclassified (IBD-U) is proposed. Specifically, these revised criteria recommend upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and ileocolonscopy for all suspected patients with PIBD, with small bowel imaging (unless typical UC after endoscopy and histology) by magnetic resonance enterography or wireless capsule endoscopy.

/pdf/espghan-revised-porto-criteria-for-the-diagnosis-of-1om9et4l3i.pdf

ESPGHAN revised porto criteria for the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in children and adolescents

A multidisciplinary panel of 18 physicians and 3 nonphysicians from eight countries (Sweden, UK, Argentina, Australia, Italy, Finland, Norway and the USA) reviewed the literature on diagnosis and management of adult coeliac disease (CD). This paper presents the recommendations of the British Society of Gastroenterology. Areas of controversies were explored through phone meetings and web surveys. Nine working groups examined the following areas of CD diagnosis and management: classification of CD; genetics and immunology; diagnostics; serology and endoscopy; follow-up; gluten-free diet; refractory CD and malignancies; quality of life; novel treatments; patient support; and screening for CD.

/pdf/diagnosis-and-management-of-adult-coeliac-disease-guidelines-lzuj7a4fh0.pdf

Diagnosis and management of adult coeliac disease: guidelines from the British Society of Gastroenterology

Global Prevalence of Celiac Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Objective: Diagnostic criteria for coeliac disease (CD) from the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) were published in 1990. Since then, the autoantigen in CD, tissue transglutaminase, has been identified; the perception of CD has changed from that of a rather uncommon enteropathy to a common multiorgan disease strongly dependent on the haplotypes human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8; and CD-specific antibody tests have improved. Methods: A panel of 17 experts defined CD and developed new diagnostic criteria based on the Delphi process. Two groups of patients were defined with different diagnostic approaches to diagnose CD: children with symptoms suggestive of CD (group 1) and asymptomatic children at increased risk for CD (group 2). The 2004 National Institutes of Health/ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality report and a systematic literature search on antibody tests for CD in paediatric patients covering the years 2004 to 2009 was the basis for the evidence-based recommendations on CD-specific antibody testing. Results: In group 1, the diagnosis of CD is based on symptoms, positive serology, and histology that is consistent with CD. If immunoglobulin A anti-tissue transglutaminase type 2 antibody titers are high (>10 times the upper limit of normal), then the option is to diagnose CD without duodenal biopsies by applying a strict protocol with further laboratory tests. In group 2, the diagnosis of CD is based on positive serology and histology. HLADQ2 and HLA-DQ8 testing is valuable because CD is unlikely if both haplotypes are negative. Conclusions: The aim of the new guidelines was to achieve a high diagnostic accuracy and to reduce the burden for patients and their families. The performance of these guidelines in clinical practice should be evaluated prospectively. (JPGN 2012;54: 136–160)

/pdf/european-society-for-pediatric-gastroenterology-hepatology-ixq9y86ymv.pdf

M. Lelgeman

Papers

European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Coeliac Disease

European society for pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition guidelines for the diagnosis of coeliac disease