-
Welcome to Celiac.com!
You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.
-
Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):
-
Get Celiac.com Updates:Support Our Content
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'articles'.
-
Celiac.com 01/24/2023 - As with many studies sponsored by well-intended disease support groups, a recent qualitative study claims to link negative media portrayals of celiac disease with negative impacts upon people with celiac disease. However, the study, though well-meaning, is deeply flawed, and its conclusions are suspect. The study sets out to answer an important question: Is negative media coverage about celiac disease having a negative effect on people with celiac disease and gluten-intolerance? The problem lies in the methods used to gather information, the questions asked or not asked, and the conclusions drawn from that information. Researchers Satvik R. Verma and Manpreet Bains set out to describe and analyze the nature of the media coverage of celiac disease. They are affiliated with theTrauma and Orthopaedics, Kingston Hospital in London, and the Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham in Nottingham, GBR. To begin, they commissioned a document analysis of local and national UK newspaper articles over three weeks, from May 2nd to May 22nd, 2016, ensuring coverage of articles from Coeliac Awareness Week. The team used Kantar Media of London to collect articles that used celiac disease-related language, and analyze them using a combination of thematic and content analysis techniques. They then used "an inductive approach" to code articles into themes, and to present frequency data. They included a total of four hundred eighty-eight articles in the analysis, with 233 in week one, 117 in week two, and 138 articles in week three. Articles exhibited one of six overarching themes: events around Awareness Week and food content noted as gluten-free (gluten-free); raising awareness; encouraging people to seek help; and other health implications and perceptions of celiac disease and the gluten-free diet, of which a significant proportion consisted of articles by Coeliac UK. They found both positive and negative articles. They noted that the number of negative newspaper articles rose sharply during Coeliac Awareness Week, with instances of negative articles rising in week one, and even more sharply in week three. From this information, they concluded that "mixed messaging" negatively impacted the potential and current patients with celiac disease, especially in relation to gluten-free diet adherence and diagnosis rates. The problem is that they don't have any actual data. They are simply saying that they found some negative articles and then concluded that those negative articles "negatively impacted the potential and current patients with celiac disease, especially in relation to gluten-free diet adherence and diagnosis rates." The conclusion sounds serious: Namely, that negative articles about celiac disease and gluten-intolerance are having negative effects upon people with celiac disease. Data Don't Support the Conclusion Based on what? Because they don't offer any data, even anecdotal, about the effects of these articles on people with celiac disease, they don't even seem to have a good correlation argument, let alone a causation argument. It's possible that this is true, but they need a great deal more data to prove their case. Right now, they're stuck with saying: we found a bunch of negative articles on celiac disease, and we THINK those are having a negative effect on people with celiac disease. But they offer no solid evidence to support that conclusion. They call this a qualitative study, but try to slip in a quantitative conclusion. That is, if they want to say that a certain number of people are affected in a certain way by negative celiac articles, then they need to do a better job of quantifying the effect. How many people are affected by negative celiac coverage? How are they affected? What's the damage? Without better methodology, and better data, this study simply fails to provide any clear picture of the supposed damage done to people with celiac disease, or even the exact nature of the "negative" coverage. Studies like this may sound important, and my even seem to show something, but they are deceptive. By simply assuming their conclusion, the study does no one any favors. Why Does it Matter? The study simply fails to prove that "negative" articles during Celiac Awareness Week translate into actual harm to people with celiac disease and gluten-intolerance, and even though this conclusion may seem self evident, a properly done study would not jump to this conclusion. To be meaningful, the study needs to do more to both describe the "negative" articles, and to clearly document their affect on people with celiac disease and gluten-intolerance. And it must, at some point, link the two with solid quantitative, not qualitative data. Read more at Cureus 14(12): e32444.
-
- articles
- celiac disease
- (and 5 more)
-
Celiac.com 01/01/2016 - Each year Celiac.com publishes hundreds of articles related to celiac disease and the gluten-free diet. Below are the most popular ones published in 2015. Some on this list, like our annual gluten-free Halloween candy list, are no surprise. Others, however, come as a complete surprise to our staff. Our own predictions often end up incorrect, and we are usually quite surprised to find out which of our articles end up being among the most popular ones that we publish. This year's surprises include articles on General Mills being sued over Cheerios, Panera testing out gluten-free options, the ultimate cause of celiac disease, and a pocket sensor that detects gluten. Our staff would like to take this opportunity to thank each one of you and wish you a Happy New Year and a fabulous 2016! Most Popular Celiac.com Articles of 2015 10) Ten Things to Try if You Accidentally Eat Gluten 9) Wait-List for Pocket Sensor that Detects Gluten in Food 8) Many People With Non-celiac Gluten Sensitivity Have Autoimmune Disease or Antinuclear Antibodies 7) Gluten-free Halloween Candy 2015 6) Lectins Are Toxins 5) Scientists Finally Know What Causes Celiac Disease! 4) Could Changing Gut Bacteria Prevent Celiac Disease? 3) General Mills Sued Over Recalled Gluten-free Cheerios 2) Panera Quietly Testing Gluten-Free Bread Options 1) How to Succeed At Reducing Oxalate on a Gluten-free Diet
-
The following was received on March 5, 1998 from Kathryn K. Harden, Ph.D., k-harden@UIUC.EDU, Assistant Editor, The Journal of Nutrition, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The latest issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition contains two articles concerning celiac disease. It is encouraging to see research papers concerning celiac disease in important basic research and clinical journals. The citations are: Reversal of low bone density with a gluten-free diet in children and adolescents with celiac disease. S. Mora, G. Barera, A. Ricotti, G. Weber, C. Bianchi and G. Chiumello. AJCN 67: 477-481, 1998. The authors conclude that in children and adolescents with low bone mineral density (BMD) due to celiac disease, a gluten free diet promotes a rapid increase of BMD that leads to a complete recovery of bone mineralization. Due to the severe consequences of low BMD, the authors emphasize the need for early diagnosis and treatment of celiac disease. Nutritional status of newly diagnosed celiac disease patients before and after the institution of a celiac disease diet - association with the grade of mucosal villous atrophy. T Kemppainen, V-M Kosma, E Janatuinen, R Julkunen, P Pikkarainen, M Uusitupa. AJCN 67: 482-487, 1998. Authors found that celiac disease patients with 3 levels of intestinal villous atrophy (partial, subtotal, total) did not differ in the nutritional status variables measured except erythrocyte folate and serum ferritin concentrations. The following was received from J.C. Trevett JCTrevett@aol.com on September 28, 1998: Two articles I would like to add to your list if you dont already have info. Journal of Pediatrics, August 1998 article entitled, Celiac disease: A Reappraisal, by David Branski, MD and Ricardo Troncone, MD. Dr. Branski is Dept. of Pediatrics, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, P. O. Box 3235, Jerusalem, Israel. It is a good five page article referring to the tip of the iceberg again - at least all the experts are in agreement all over the world that we are not diagnosing enough celiac disease. This is a good article - there is some technical stuff about the DB MOLECULE, which I will never understand, but I gave a copy to my gastroenterologist and he seemed to appreciate it. Tufts University, Medford, MA, Tufts Health & Nutrition Letter - September, 1998 - Volume 16, Number 7. Good article for average layperson on Coping with Celiac Disease - mentions CSA/USA, Inc. and its many (80) support groups throughout the country. Also mentions Gluten Intolerance Group, Energy Foods and Dietary Specialties. To quote part of the article: In one survey, 43 percent of those with the condition said that theyd been diagnosed with an assortment of ailments - such as anemia, stress, ulcers, and nerves before finding out that celiac disease was responsible for the symptoms.
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):