Role of magnification endoscopy in the diagnosis and evaluation of suspected celiac disease: Correlation with histology

Indian Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 67-69

  Banerjee, Rupa ^a   Shekharan, Anuradha ^a   Ramji, C ^a   Puli, Srinivas R ^b   Kalapala, Rakesh ^a   Ramachandani, Mohan ^a   Gupta, Rajesh ^a   Lakhtakia, Sandeep ^a   Tandan, Manu ^a   Rao, G V ^a   Reddy, D Nageshwar ^a  

^a ASIAN INSTITUTE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY   (India)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CELIAC DISEASE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DUODENUM BIOPSY; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTESTINE VILLUS ATROPHY; MALE; PATHOLOGIST; RELIABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; ATROPHY; BIOPSY; CELIAC DISEASE; DUODENOSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; INTESTINAL MUCOSA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34250351334     PISSN: 02548860     EISSN: 02548860     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Shah VH, Rotterdam H, Kotler DP, Fasano A, Green PH. All that scallops is not celiac disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:717-20.
2. Dickey W, Hughes D. Disappointing sensitivity of endoscopic markers for villous atrophy in a high risk population: implication for celiac disease diagnosis during routine endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2126-8.
3. Dickey W, Hughes D. Prevalence of celiac disease and its endoscopic markers among patients having routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:2182-6.
4. Bardella MT, Minoli G, Radaelli F, Quatrini M, Bianchi PA, Conte D. Re-evaluation of duodenal endoscopic markers in the diagnosis of celiac disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:714-6.
5. Sharma P. Magnification endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:435-43.
6. Siegel LM, Stevens PD, Lightdale CJ, Green PHR, Goodman S, Gascia-Carrasquillo RJ, et al. Combined magnification endoscopy with chromoendoscopy in the evaluation of patients with suspected malabsorption. Gastrointest Endosc 1997;46:226-30.
7. Kiesslich R, Mergener K, Naumann C, Hahn M, Jung M, Koehler HH, et al. Value of chromoendoscopy and magnification endoscopy in the evaluation of duodenal abnormalities: a prospective randomized comparison. Endoscopy 2003;35:559-63.
8. Badreldin R, Barrett P, Wooff DA, Mansfield J, Yiannakou Y. How good is zoom endoscopy for assessment of villous atrophy in coeliac disease? Endoscopy 2005;37:994-8.
9. Cammarota G, Martino A, Pirozzi GA, Cianci R, Cremonnini F, Zuccala G, et al. Direct visualization of intestinal villi by high-resolution magnifying upper endoscopy: a validation study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:732-8.
10. Hurlstone DP, Sanders DS. High magnification immersion chromoscopic duodenoscopy permits visualization of patchy atrophy in celiac disease: an opportunity to target biopsies of abnormal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:815-6.
11. Cammarota G, Martino A, Di Caro S, Cianci R, Piera G. Lecca, Fabio M Veccio, et al. High-resolution magnifying upper endoscopy in a patient with patchy celiac disease. Dig Dis Sci 2005;50:601-4.
12. Cammarota G, Gasbarrini A, Gasbarrini G. No more biopsy in the diagnostic work-up of celiac disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:119-21.
13. Gasbarrini A, Ojetti V, Cuoco L, Cammarota G, Migneco A, Armuzzi A, et al. Lack of endoscopic visualization of intestinal villi with the immersion technique in overt atrophic celiac disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:348-51.