Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Lack of compliance with consensus recommendations on the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in published prevalence studies. A clinical and systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: According to consensus recommendations, the presence of esophageal symptoms, >15 eosinophils/high-power field and unresponsiveness to proton pump inhibitors are required for a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Nevertheless, inconsistency in using these guidelines has been reported in recent publications. The objective of this study was to assess compliance with EoE diagnostic guidelines in published studies on EoE prevalence and to evaluate other clinical and methodological parameters.

METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in articles published between 2008 and 2015 on the prevalence of EoE in unselected adults. Studies using EoE diagnostic definitions were judged to be compliant if they included all three components of the definition, partially compliant if they included two and non-compliant if they included one or none. Esophageal biopsy protocol differences and descriptions of patients' characteristics were determined.

RESULTS: Among the 20 studies included, eight were performed in a hospital setting and 12 in the general population. Only 40.0% of studies were compliant, 35.0% were partially compliant and 25.0% were non-compliant with the EoE diagnostic definition guidelines. In 60.0% of the studies a proton pump inhibitor trial was not administered. Only 30.0% adhered to the recommendations in the esophageal biopsy protocol. A lack of description of the history of atopia and endoscopic characteristics was observed in many studies.

CONCLUSIONS: Partial or non-compliance with the EoE diagnostic definition was observed in most of the published prevalence studies after the publication of the first consensus. The results of these studies might be interpreted taking into account this context.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app