| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Ludvigsson, Jonas F., 1969-, et al.
(author)
-
Outcome measures in coeliac disease trials : the Tampere recommendations
- 2018
-
In: Gut. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0017-5749 .- 1468-3288. ; 67:8, s. 1410-1424
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: A gluten-free diet is the only treatment option of coeliac disease, but recently an increasing number of trials have begun to explore alternative treatment strategies. We aimed to review the literature on coeliac disease therapeutic trials and issue recommendations for outcome measures.Design: Based on a literature review of 10 062 references, we (17 researchers and 2 patient representatives from 10 countries) reviewed the use and suitability of both clinical and non-clinical outcome measures. We then made expert-based recommendations for use of these outcomes in coeliac disease trials and identified areas where research is needed. Results: We comment on the use of histology, serology, clinical outcome assessment (including patient-reported outcomes), quality of life and immunological tools including gluten immunogenic peptides for trials in coeliac disease.Conclusion: Careful evaluation and reporting of outcome measures will increase transparency and comparability of coeliac disease therapeutic trials, and will benefit patients, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ludvigsson, Jonas F., et al.
(author)
-
The Oslo definitions for coeliac disease and related terms
- 2013
-
In: Gut. - : BMJ. - 0017-5749 .- 1468-3288. ; 62:1, s. 43-52
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective The literature suggests a lack of consensus on the use of terms related to coeliac disease (CD) and gluten. Design A multidisciplinary task force of 16 physicians from seven countries used the electronic database PubMed to review the literature for CD-related terms up to January 2011. Teams of physicians then suggested a definition for each term, followed by feedback of these definitions through a web survey on definitions, discussions during a meeting in Oslo and phone conferences. In addition to 'CD', the following descriptors of CD were evaluated (in alphabetical order): asymptomatic, atypical, classical, latent, non-classical, overt, paediatric classical, potential, refractory, silent, subclinical, symptomatic, typical, CD serology, CD autoimmunity, genetically at risk of CD, dermatitis herpetiformis, gluten, gluten ataxia, gluten intolerance, gluten sensitivity and gliadin-specific antibodies. Results CD was defined as 'a chronic small intestinal immune-mediated enteropathy precipitated by exposure to dietary gluten in genetically predisposed individuals'. Classical CD was defined as 'CD presenting with signs and symptoms of malabsorption. Diarrhoea, steatorrhoea, weight loss or growth failure is required.' 'Gluten-related disorders' is the suggested umbrella term for all diseases triggered by gluten and the term gluten intolerance should not to be used. Other definitions are presented in the paper. Conclusion This paper presents the Oslo definitions for CD-related terms.
|
|
| 5. |
- Moshina, Nataliia, et al.
(author)
-
Digital breast tomosynthesis in mammographic screening : false negative cancer cases in the To-Be 1 trial
- 2024
-
In: Insights into Imaging. - 1869-4101. ; 15:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives: The randomized controlled trial comparing digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT + SM) versus digital mammography (DM) (the To-Be 1 trial), 2016–2017, did not result in higher cancer detection for DBT + SM. We aimed to determine if negative cases prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancers from DBT + SM were due to interpretive error. Methods: Five external breast radiologists performed the individual blinded review of 239 screening examinations (90 true negative, 39 false positive, 19 prior to interval cancer, and 91 prior to consecutive screen-detected cancer) and the informed consensus review of examinations prior to interval and screen-detected cancers (n = 110). The reviewers marked suspicious findings with a score of 1–5 (probability of malignancy). A case was false negative if ≥ 2 radiologists assigned the cancer site with a score of ≥ 2 in the blinded review and if the case was assigned as false negative by a consensus in the informed review. Results: In the informed review, 5.3% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 18.7% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were considered false negative. In the blinded review, 10.6% of examinations prior to interval cancer and 42.9% prior to consecutive round screen-detected cancer were scored ≥ 2. A score of ≥ 2 was assigned to 47.8% of negative and 89.7% of false positive examinations. Conclusions: The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT + SM versus DM in the To-Be 1 trial is complex and not due to interpretive error alone. Critical relevance statement: The randomized controlled trial on digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammograms (DBT) and digital mammography (DM), 2016–2017, showed no difference in cancer detection for the two techniques. The rates of false negative screening examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were consistent with the rates in prior DM reviews, indicating that the non-superior DBT performance in the trial might not be due to interpretive error alone. Key points: • Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) did not result in a higher breast cancer detection rate compared to screening with digital mammography (DM) in the To-Be 1 trial. • The false negative rates for examinations prior to interval and consecutive screen-detected cancer for DBT were determined in the trial to test if the lack of differences was due to interpretive error. • The false negative rates were consistent with those of prior DM reviews, indicating that the lack of higher cancer detection for DBT versus DM was complex and not due to interpretive error alone. Graphical Abstract: (Figure presented.)
|
|
