In a joint live stream on Elawady's channel, a speaker (Elawady or his guest Dr. Tamer El-Baz; speaker turns cannot be identified) describes a coeliac patient on the system who reintroduced gluten-containing toast, and advises pausing it when symptoms appear and reintroducing it later.
Original statement
ارتاح اتحس فبدا يدخل التوست يعني انا عندي عينه ا سيليك ... اول ما خدت التوست تعبت شويه ... طب استنى وقفيه شويه خلينا نمشي على النظام ورجعيه تاني
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
In a joint live stream on Elawady's channel, a speaker (Elawady or his guest Dr. Tamer El-Baz; speaker turns cannot be identified) describes a coeliac patient on the system who reintroduced gluten-containing toast, and advises pausing it when symptoms appear and reintroducing it later.
Origin
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady or guest (machine transcript of a joint live stream; speaker not identifiable)
- Video
- لايف الدكتور تامر الباز ❤️❤️❤️❤️ (Open source)
- Published
- 18 July 2025
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Machine transcript of a live stream with Dr. Tamer El-Baz (two speakers separated by '>>'); it cannot be determined which statements are Elawady's. Treat as statements made on Elawady's channel with uncertain speaker.
- Claimed mechanism
Coeliac symptoms are due to other foods (eggs etc.), not gluten.
- Claimed health effect
Coeliac patients improve and tolerate toast.
- Population concerned
People with coeliac disease.
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Scientific assessment
False – The statement contradicts the robust evidence.
Certainty of evidence: high – Further research is very unlikely to change the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Coeliac patients on the system can eat toast again.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Some people with a coeliac label may have been misdiagnosed; re-evaluation by a gastroenterologist is legitimate. A minority (about 20% in one selected series) of patients diagnosed in childhood show no villous atrophy years after resuming gluten (latency), but some of them relapse later (I-GRN-110).
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
For confirmed coeliac disease, gluten reintroduction is harmful, regardless of symptoms; symptom improvement after removing other foods does not prove gluten tolerance.
4. What remains unclear?
Speaker attribution.
5. Which studies support it?
None for symptom-guided reintroduction; I-GRN-110 shows latency in a minority, identifiable only by repeated biopsy.
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-GRN-02, I-GRN-105 (guidelines: strict lifelong gluten-free diet); I-GRN-107 (50 mg gluten/day damaged the mucosa); I-GRN-108 (14-day challenge halved villus/crypt ratio while symptoms subsided); I-GRN-109 (persistent villous atrophy associated with lymphoma, HR 2.26); I-WHT-04.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
ESsCD: lifelong gluten-free diet with follow-up serology.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Same medical standard.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Coeliac patients should not reintroduce gluten outside a supervised diagnostic re-evaluation.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
The treatment of coeliac disease is a strict gluten-free diet (I-GRN-02); reintroducing gluten causes ongoing intestinal damage even when symptoms are mild. Anecdotal symptom improvement does not show mucosal healing.
- Source quality
Anecdote in a conversation; speaker attribution uncertain.
- Regional transferability
Universal.
- Individual exceptions
None.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
Scientifically refuted – High-quality evidence shows the opposite, or the claim contradicts well-established physiology.
Research question: In people with confirmed coeliac disease, is reintroducing gluten-containing bread (pausing when symptoms appear) safe?
Research question in detail (PICO)
- Population
- People with confirmed coeliac disease
- Intervention or exposure
- Reintroduction of gluten, guided by symptoms
- Comparison
- Strict gluten-free diet
- Geographic scope
- universal biology
- Outcomes
- Villous atrophy
- Serology
- Bone density
- Lymphoproliferative malignancy
- Symptoms
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Most coeliac patients back on gluten have hidden gut damage
Matysiak-Budnik T et al.. Gut 2007 · PMID 17303598 · DOI 10.1136/gut.2006.100511 Case series / case reportabstract checkednewly addedA minority (about 20%) of adults diagnosed with coeliac disease in childhood who resumed gluten had no villous atrophy (latency), but 2 of 13 later relapsed.
- Actual result
- 13/61 latent; 48/61 silent villous atrophy; osteopenia 70% in silent patients.
- Methodological quality
- low (retrospective, selected)
- Relevance
- direct, but mostly contradicts the safety of reintroduction
- Limitations
- Selected sample; cannot predict who tolerates gluten.
What speaks against the claim?
Two weeks of gluten damages the gut in coeliac disease even when symptoms fade
Leffler D et al.. Gut 2013 · PMID 22619366 · DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302196 Randomised controlled trialabstract checkednewly addedTwo weeks of >=3 g gluten/day halved the villus/crypt ratio in treated coeliac adults; symptoms returned to baseline by day 28 while antibodies rose.
- Actual result
- Vh:Cd 2.2 to 1.1 (p<0.001); IEL 32.6 to 51.8.
- Methodological quality
- moderate (small randomised dose study)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- No placebo arm.
Even 50 mg of gluten a day harms the gut in coeliac disease
Catassi C et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2007 · PMID 17209192 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/85.1.160 Randomised controlled trialabstract checkednewly addedEven 50 mg gluten/day for 90 days damaged the mucosa.
- Actual result
- Vh/Cd -20% vs +9% placebo.
- Methodological quality
- moderate (small RCT)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Small.
European guideline for coeliac disease
Al-Toma A et al.. United European Gastroenterol J 2019 · PMID 31210940 · DOI 10.1177/2050640619844125 Guideline / position statementfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessmentGuideline: lifelong strict gluten-free diet (strong recommendation, high-level evidence).
- Actual result
- Recommendation.
- Methodological quality
- high
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- None.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Reintroducing gluten in confirmed coeliac disease causes mucosal damage quickly, often without lasting symptoms; symptom-guided "pausing" is unsafe.
Why some studies weigh more
Randomised challenge studies with histology and guideline consensus outweigh a retrospective case series of selected patients.
Is a causal relationship established? Yes, established Gluten challenge reproducibly causes villous atrophy in coeliac disease; persistent atrophy is associated with lymphoma (I-GRN-109) and low bone density (I-GRN-110).
Remaining uncertainty
Predictors of long-term latency in a small minority.
Justified conclusion
Gluten reintroduction should happen only within a supervised diagnostic re-evaluation.
Why do studies seem to disagree?
Latency studies (I-GRN-110) do not contradict challenge trials: they describe a minority who tolerate gluten, identified only by repeated biopsy, and some relapse later. The anecdote in the video relies on symptoms, which Leffler (I-GRN-108) shows to be an unreliable guide.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal.
- Eating habits
- Bread-centred Egyptian diet makes accidental exposure common.
- Origin of the food
- Not relevant.
- Contaminants
- Not relevant.
- National production conditions
- Not relevant.
- Legal rules
- Not applicable.
- Actual monitoring data
- Not applicable.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Statistical re-check
- Log-symmetry of HR CI – HR 2.26 (1.18-4.34): geometric centre 2.26, consistent. recalculated
- Recalculate osteopenia comparison – 1/9 vs 23/33: Fisher exact p=0.0025 (reported p<0.001; still significant, minor discrepancy). recalculated
- Relative change of Vh:Cd – 2.2 to 1.1 = 50% reduction in 14 days. recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Mucosal damage after gluten reintroduction in coeliac disease
- Starting level
- high (randomised trials)
- Reasons for downgrading
- imprecision (small trials)
- Reasons for upgrading
- dose-response/consistency across challenge studies
- Result
- high
Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.
Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
- ESsCD (European Society for the Study of Coeliac Disease): ESsCD guideline for coeliac disease and other gluten-related disorders (Al-Toma et al., UEG J 2019; study I-GRN-02) (2019) · Original publication
Diagnostic testing (serology and biopsy) should be performed on a gluten-containing diet; a gluten-free diet should be introduced only when diagnosis is conclusive (strong, high); patients with coeliac disease should adhere to a lifelong gluten-free diet (strong, high); gluten-containing cereals are wheat, barley and rye; maize and oats are naturally gluten-free but can be contaminated; uncontaminated oats are tolerated by most patients; foods labelled gluten-free must contain <=20 ppm (EC 41/2009); NCGS is considered only after coeliac disease and wheat allergy are excluded on a gluten-containing diet; patients advised to eat whole-grain rice, maize, potatoes and vegetables. - American College of Gastroenterology: ACG Guidelines Update: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease (Rubio-Tapia et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2023; I-GRN-105) (2023) · Original publication
Abstract only (publisher full text blocked): coeliac disease is a permanent immune-mediated response to gluten in wheat, barley and rye; tTG antibodies for screening; biopsy required in most patients; treatment requires strict gluten-free diet and lifelong medical follow-up. - NICE (UK): Coeliac disease: recognition, assessment and management (NG20), Recommendations (2015) · Original publication
Offer serological testing for unexplained GI symptoms, fatigue, weight loss, unexplained iron/B12/folate deficiency, IBS in adults, type 1 diabetes, first-degree relatives; tests are accurate only on a gluten-containing diet; do not start a gluten-free diet until a specialist confirms the diagnosis; eat gluten in more than one meal daily for at least 6 weeks before testing; gluten-free oats can be included. - Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Celiac Disease: An Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice Guideline (McDermid et al., J Acad Nutr Diet 2023) (2023) · Original publication
Abstract: all individuals with coeliac disease should follow a gluten-free diet (1C, imperative), which may include gluten-free oats in adults (2D, conditional); children should follow a nutritionally adequate gluten-free diet.
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (celiac disease[ti] OR coeliac disease[ti]) AND (latency[tiab] OR tolerance[tiab] OR "gluten reintroduction"[tiab] OR "normal diet"[tiab]) AND (long-term follow-up[tiab]) | supporting evidence | 4 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | Matysiak-Budnik T[au] AND latency[ti] | supporting evidence | 1 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (coeliac OR celiac) AND ("gluten tolerance" OR latency OR "gluten reintroduction" OR "normal diet") AND ("long-term" OR "follow-up") AND (adults OR children) | supporting evidence | 1929 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | safe gluten threshold[ti] celiac | contradicting evidence | 2 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | mucosal healing[ti] lymphoproliferative[ti] celiac | contradicting evidence | 1 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | TITLE:("coeliac" OR "celiac") AND ("gluten challenge") AND (kinetics OR histolog*) AND (PUB_TYPE:"Clinical Trial" OR PUB_TYPE:"Randomized Controlled Trial") | contradicting evidence | 44 | |
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | (celiac disease[ti]) AND (guideline[ti] OR guidelines[ti]) AND 2020:2026[dp] | guidelines | 21 |
Open questions
None that change the conclusion.
How deeply was this checked?
8 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (1 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 6 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.
Last scientific review: 26 October 2026
History of the verdict
- 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: False (high)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: False (high)
Unchanged; new challenge, threshold and cohort data (I-GRN-107, I-GRN-108, I-GRN-109) directly confirm the harm. The latency literature (I-GRN-110) is acknowledged but does not support symptom-guided reintroduction.
New sources: I-GRN-107 I-GRN-108 I-GRN-109 I-GRN-110 I-GRN-105 I-GRN-106
In plain language
In a live conversation on the channel, coeliac patients were described as reintroducing toast after following the system. For people with confirmed coeliac disease, gluten keeps damaging the gut even if they feel only a little unwell. The accepted treatment is a strict gluten-free diet for life. Any doubt about the diagnosis should be checked by a specialist.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (0)
No studies in this group.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (7)
-
European guideline for coeliac disease
Al-Toma A et al.. United European Gastroenterol J 2019 · PMID 31210940 · DOI 10.1177/2050640619844125Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyCoeliac disease needs a strict lifelong gluten-free diet; gluten is in wheat, rye and barley (not in uncontaminated rice, maize or oats); non-coeliac gluten sensitivity is recognised after coeliac disease and wheat allergy are excluded.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Guideline
- How was the study done?
Expert consensus guideline with GRADE grading, based on a PubMed literature review
- What was actually found?
GFD is treatment
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Coeliac patients must avoid gluten
- What are the study's limitations?
Not based on a systematic review; small expert board; no conflict-of-interest statement in available text
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts denial and reintroduction claims
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not quantify how common NCGS is or whether gluten itself (rather than fructans/ATIs) causes its symptoms
-
How common is coeliac disease?
Singh P et al.. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018 · PMID 29551598 · DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.037Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyAbout 1 in 70 have coeliac antibodies and about 1 in 140 biopsy-confirmed disease worldwide.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Prevalence
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
96 studies
- What was actually found?
0.7-1.4%
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Coeliac disease is real and not rare
- What are the study's limitations?
Heterogeneity
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts denial of gluten disease
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Causes of symptoms in non-coeliacs
-
Even 50 mg of gluten a day harms the gut in coeliac disease
Catassi C et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2007 · PMID 17209192 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/85.1.160Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyIn treated coeliac patients, 50 mg gluten daily for 3 months reduced villus height by about 20%; placebo did not.
Small regular gluten doses damage the mucosa.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Find a safe trace-gluten level.
- How was the study done?
Randomised blinded capsule trial.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
49 adults with coeliac disease.
- What was actually found?
50 mg/day damaged villi.
- How large was the observed effect?
-20% Vh/Cd vs +9% on placebo.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Strictness matters: small amounts are harmful.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small, short.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts reintroducing gluten; supports gluten-free standards.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Basis of EU limit.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not define risk for each individual.
-
Two weeks of gluten damages the gut in coeliac disease even when symptoms fade
Leffler D et al.. Gut 2013 · PMID 22619366 · DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302196Randomised controlled trialindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyIn 20 coeliac adults, 3 g gluten daily for 14 days halved villus height ratio; symptoms rose and then went back to baseline by day 28.
Symptoms are an unreliable guide to intestinal damage.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Measure how fast gluten harms coeliac patients.
- How was the study done?
Gluten challenge with repeated biopsies.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
20 adults.
- What was actually found?
Marked villous damage in 14 days.
- How large was the observed effect?
Vh:Cd 2.2 to 1.1.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Feeling fine does not mean the gut is fine.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small, no placebo.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts symptom-guided gluten reintroduction.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not measure long-term complications.
-
Unhealed gut in coeliac disease is linked to more lymphoma
Lebwohl B et al.. Ann Intern Med 2013 · PMID 23922062 · DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00006Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checkedAmong 7625 Swedish coeliac patients, those whose gut had not healed had about twice the lymphoma risk of those whose gut had healed.
Ongoing mucosal damage is associated with higher lymphoma risk.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Link mucosal healing with lymphoma.
- How was the study done?
National cohort.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
7625 patients.
- What was actually found?
Persistent damage: higher lymphoma risk.
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 2.26.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Healing the gut matters.
- What are the study's limitations?
No diet data.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts the safety of reintroducing gluten.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot prove gluten exposure caused the cancers.
-
US specialist guideline on coeliac disease (2023)
Rubio-Tapia A et al.. Am J Gastroenterol 2023 · PMID 36602836 · DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002075Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyCoeliac disease is a lifelong immune reaction to gluten from wheat, barley and rye; treatment is a strict gluten-free diet with medical follow-up.
Strict GFD and lifelong follow-up are required.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Guide diagnosis and treatment.
- How was the study done?
Expert guideline using GRADE.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
not applicable
- What was actually found?
Antibody test, usually biopsy; strict lifelong gluten-free diet.
- How large was the observed effect?
not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
People with coeliac disease must avoid gluten strictly.
- What are the study's limitations?
Only abstract read.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts denial of gluten disorders and gluten reintroduction.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Consistent with European guidance.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not address the non-coeliac claims in detail in the abstract.
-
UK guideline: test for coeliac disease before cutting out gluten
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guideline NG20 2015Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyPeople with unexplained iron deficiency, IBS-type symptoms and other signs should be tested, and must keep eating gluten until a specialist confirms the diagnosis.
Diagnosis and management need specialist care.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Guide recognition and testing.
- How was the study done?
National guideline.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
not applicable
- What was actually found?
Testing indications; eat gluten for 6 weeks before tests.
- How large was the observed effect?
not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Stopping bread before testing can hide coeliac disease.
- What are the study's limitations?
Guideline from 2015.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts replacing diagnosis by diet change.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
UK, consistent with EU.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Does not grade evidence for every recommendation on the page.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)
-
Most coeliac patients back on gluten have hidden gut damage
Matysiak-Budnik T et al.. Gut 2007 · PMID 17303598 · DOI 10.1136/gut.2006.100511Case series / case reportindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key studyOf 61 symptom-free adults back on a normal diet, 48 had villous atrophy and many had bone loss; 13 had no atrophy, but some of those relapsed later.
Some coeliac patients tolerate gluten for years (about 20%), but most symptom-free patients on gluten have villous atrophy and bone loss.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Check whether all coeliac patients need lifelong GFD.
- How was the study done?
Retrospective follow-up with biopsies.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
61 adults diagnosed as children.
- What was actually found?
About 20% latent; 79% silent damage.
- How large was the observed effect?
Osteopenia 70% vs 11%.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
No symptoms does not mean no harm.
- What are the study's limitations?
Small, selected.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports tolerance in a minority; overall contradicts symptom-guided reintroduction.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot identify in advance who will tolerate gluten.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Regional context
Germany / EU
ESsCD: lifelong gluten-free diet with follow-up serology.
Egypt
Same medical standard.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
False Reintroducing gluten in coeliac disease is unsafe.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Pesticides and pesticide residues
- Mycotoxins (mould toxins)
Cereals and rice
Choose a country to see the checked information for it.
Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.
Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country
References
- European Society for the Study of Coeliac Disease (ESsCD) guideline for coeliac disease and other gluten-related disorders.. Al-Toma A et al.. United European Gastroenterol J 2019 · PMID 31210940 · DOI 10.1177/2050640619844125
- Global Prevalence of Celiac Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.. Singh P et al.. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018 · PMID 29551598 · DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.037
- A prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to establish a safe gluten threshold for patients with celiac disease.. Catassi C et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2007 · PMID 17209192 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/85.1.160
- Kinetics of the histological, serological and symptomatic responses to gluten challenge in adults with coeliac disease.. Leffler D et al.. Gut 2013 · PMID 22619366 · DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302196
- Mucosal healing and risk for lymphoproliferative malignancy in celiac disease: a population-based cohort study.. Lebwohl B et al.. Ann Intern Med 2013 · PMID 23922062 · DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00006
- American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines Update: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease.. Rubio-Tapia A et al.. Am J Gastroenterol 2023 · PMID 36602836 · DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002075
- Coeliac disease: recognition, assessment and management (NICE guideline NG20) - Recommendations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guideline NG20 2015
- Long-term follow-up of 61 coeliac patients diagnosed in childhood: evolution toward latency is possible on a normal diet.. Matysiak-Budnik T et al.. Gut 2007 · PMID 17303598 · DOI 10.1136/gut.2006.100511