Volume 20, Issue 2 pp. 224-233

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Open Access

The prevalence of celiac disease in women with infertility—A systematic review with meta-analysis

Ida Glimberg,

Ida Glimberg

School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Linnea Haggård,

Linnea Haggård

Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Benjamin Lebwohl,

Benjamin Lebwohl

Celiac Disease Center, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Peter H. R. Green,

Peter H. R. Green

Celiac Disease Center, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Jonas F. Ludvigsson,

Corresponding Author

Jonas F. Ludvigsson

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0003-1024-5602

Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Department of Paediatrics, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden

Correspondence

Jonas F. Ludvigsson, Department of Paediatrics, Örebro University Hospital, 70185 Örebro, Sweden.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Ida Glimberg,

Ida Glimberg

School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Linnea Haggård,

Linnea Haggård

Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Search for more papers by this author

Benjamin Lebwohl,

Benjamin Lebwohl

Celiac Disease Center, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Peter H. R. Green,

Peter H. R. Green

Celiac Disease Center, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Jonas F. Ludvigsson,

Corresponding Author

Jonas F. Ludvigsson

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0003-1024-5602

Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Department of Paediatrics, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden

Correspondence

Jonas F. Ludvigsson, Department of Paediatrics, Örebro University Hospital, 70185 Örebro, Sweden.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 22 March 2021

https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12374

Citations: 22

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the prevalence of celiac disease in infertile women.

Methods

A systematic search of four databases was conducted up until February 6, 2020. The search terms “c(o)eliac disease”, “gluten”, “vill(o)us atrophy”, “infertility” and “subfertility” yielded 1142 unique hits. Articles in other languages than English, conference abstracts, letters, and publications where relevant information was missing were excluded. In our main analysis, celiac disease had to be verified by duodenal biopsy. The titles and abstracts, and the full-text articles were independently reviewed by two researchers. A fixed-effect model was used to calculate the weighted prevalence.

Results

Based on 11 studies (1617 women), the pooled prevalence of biopsy-confirmed celiac disease was 0.7% (95% CI = 0.2%-1.2%) in women with any infertility. Restricting our study population to women with unexplained infertility, the pooled prevalence of biopsy-confirmed celiac disease was 0.6% (95% CI = 0.0%-1.6%). When including studies where celiac disease had been defined per serology (20 studies; 5158 women), the pooled prevalence of celiac disease was 1.1% (95% CI = 0.6%-1.6%) in women with any infertility.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that celiac disease is not more common in infertile women than in the general population. Celiac screening in infertile women may have low yield.

1 INTRODUCTION

Celiac disease (CD) is an immune-mediated disorder of the small intestine affecting about 1% of the general population.¹ CD is more common in females than in males.² Symptoms may include weight loss, constipation, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and bloating but also non-gastrointestinal symptoms such as psychological comorbidity and autoimmune manifestations including psoriasis.^{3, 4} However, some patients may show few or no symptoms at all.⁵

Increased prevalence of CD has been noted in several reproductive disorders, for instance, shortened fertile period, amenorrhea, hypogonadism, and recurrent pregnancy loss.⁶ Women with undiagnosed CD have an increased risk of preterm delivery and delivering a child with low birthweight.⁷ In 1970, Morris et al described three women with CD and infertility who became pregnant after adhering to a gluten-free diet⁸ and thereby suggesting a link between untreated CD and infertility. Since then, several studies have explored the prevalence of CD in couples or women with infertility, albeit many of them were limited by small sample sizes and yielded varying results.^9-31 We³² and others³³ have previously shown a normal life-time fertility in women with CD, though a decreased fertility 2 years prior to CD diagnosis cannot be ruled out.³²

We are aware of two earlier meta-analyses of CD and infertility.^{34, 35} Both found a higher prevalence of CD in women with infertility than in the general population. A positive association was seen for both all-cause infertility and unexplained infertility. Singh et al³⁵ reported a pooled prevalence of biopsy-proven CD in women with “all-cause” infertility of 2.3% (95% CI = 1.4%-3.5%), while Castaño et al³⁴ reported a pooled prevalence of biopsy-proven CD in women with “overall infertility” of 1.5% (95% CI = 0.6%-2.8%).

Castaño et al³⁴ did not require Marsh III histology for the celiac diagnosis, and both previous meta-analyses had a narrow search.^{34, 35} Singh et al only included five studies.³⁵ Knowledge about the prevalence of CD in infertile women is important when defining potential risk groups for CD screening. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of CD in infertile women with a wider search than the previous meta-analyses.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines³⁶ were used to conduct this meta-analysis.

2.1 Search

The Karolinska Institutet University Library conducted a search in PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science Core Collection using the search terms “c(o)eliac disease”, “gluten”, “villous atrophy”, “infertility” and “subfertility” on February 6, 2020. A broad search strategy was used to increase sensitivity (see Appendix A for a description of the full search). The search results were reviewed by IG and LH. In case of uncertainty, JFL made the final decision. In addition to the papers identified through this PubMed search, one additional paper was identified when reviewing the search hits.³¹ Including this latter article,³¹ twenty-eight studies in total were deemed relevant for full-text review.

2.2 Eligibility criteria

We excluded the following publications: Articles in other languages than English, conference abstracts, letters, and publications where the exact number of infertile women with CD were not reported (Figure 1). In our main analysis, CD had to be verified by duodenal biopsy consistent with CD (generally Marsh III). Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD in women was calculated for both “any infertility” and “unexplained infertility.” In a second analysis, we also included studies where positive seroprevalence (at least one relevant antibody: tissue transglutaminase, endomysial, and anti-gliadin antibodies) had been used to define CD. When male infertility was identified in a couple, the woman was excluded from the analysis.

Details are in the caption following the image — **FIGURE 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.³⁶ The article selection process. CD = celiac disease

2.3 Data collection process and data items

The selected articles were reviewed systematically in detail by both IG and LH. Retrieved from each article were publication date, country of origin, age of the patients, number of infertile women, number of infertile women with CD, number of women with unexplained infertility, number of women with unexplained infertility with CD, number of controls (if any), number of controls with CD, definitions of CD and infertility, number of positive serologies, number of patients biopsied, and study design. Authors of the individual studies were not contacted.

2.4 Statistics

For the calculation of the weighted prevalence, a fixed-effect model was used. The prevalence was reported with 95% confidence intervals. The heterogeneity between studies was calculated with I² in percentage and a P-value. A P-value < .05 was regarded as statistically significant. A meta-funnel analysis (Figure 4) was conducted to reveal potential publication bias. Statistics were calculated using STATA 13.

2.5 Ethics

This study is a meta-analysis and was therefore exempt from IRB (International Review Board) approval.

3 RESULTS

The search generated 1142 hits for review. Of these, 28 full-text articles were reviewed in detail after which eight were excluded: conference abstract (n = 4),^37-40 letter (n = 1),⁴¹ infertility not defined (n = 1),²⁸ no data on number of patients with CD (n = 1),¹⁸ and risk of overlap between study populations (n = 1).¹¹ Hence, 20 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The selection process is illustrated in Figure 1.

3.1 Study characteristics

Out of our 20 included studies, 15 were prospective, 1 was retrospective, and 4 were cross-sectional studies. Almost half of the studies ^{10, 12-14, 24-26, 30, 31} had control groups. Country of origin and whether the study was consecutive are presented in Table 1. Eleven studies were included in our main analysis.^{9, 29, 31}

TABLE 1. Characteristics and observed prevalence of celiac disease in the included studies

Study (year)	Country	Consecutive	Infertile women (N)	Celiac disease (N)	Percentage with celiac disease (%)	Celiac disease verified by biopsy^a
Choi, 2011¹⁶	USA	No	188	4	2.1	Yes
Collin, 1996¹²	Finland	Yes	150	4	2.7	Yes
Grode, 2018¹⁷	Denmark	Yes	457	1	0.2	Yes
Gunn, 2018²¹	Canada	No	393	1	0.3	No
Hogen Esch, 2011¹⁹	Netherlands	Yes	1038	6	0.6	No
Jackson, 2008²⁰	USA	No	121	1	0.8	No
Juneau, 2018²²	USA	Yes	995	18	1.8	No
Karaca, 2015²³	Turkey	No	65	0	0.0	Yes
Khoshbaten, 2011²⁴	Azerbaijan	No	100	1	3.0	Yes
Kolho, 1999²⁵	Finland	No	129	1	0.8	No
Kumar, 2011²⁶	India	Yes	230	13	5.7	No
Machado, 2013²⁷	Brazil	Yes	170	2	1.2	No
Meloni, 1999⁹	Italy	Yes	45	2	4.4	Yes
Shamaly, 2004¹⁴	Israel	No	192	5	2.6	Yes
Tiboni, 2006¹³	Italy	Yes	147	2	1.4	Yes
Vancikova, 2002³⁰	Czech Republic	No	363	4	1.1	No
Wilson, 1976¹⁵	UK	No	77	1	1.3	Yes
Sabzevari, 2017²⁹	Iran	No	100	7	7.0	Yes
Farzaneh, 2019³¹	Iran	No	150	0	0.0	Yes
Fasano, 2003¹⁰	USA	No	48	3	6.3	No

Note

Study named with first author and year of publication.
^a For biopsy verification, we required that all individuals with suspected celiac disease underwent small intestinal biopsy and had Marsh III (see text). The 11 studies verified by biopsy (“yes”) constituted the basis for our main analysis.

Very few studies followed up their patients. Only Collin et al¹² had followed up with new biopsies 6-12 months after the first one. Two studies^{15, 27} mentioned having a follow-up but did not specify details. Farzaneh et al³¹ noted that both women they considered as having CD started on a gluten-free diet. These women were not included in our analysis for biopsy-proven CD since they did not have a biopsy with Marsh III histology.

The definitions of infertility varied between studies. Only four studies^{16, 21, 27, 29} specifically mentioned a definition similar to the WHO equal to “failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse”.⁴² For participants in the study by Sabzevari et al,²⁹ women aged > 35 years only required infertility for more than 6 months. Several studies referred to their population as women visiting a hospital because of infertility.^{12-15, 17, 19, 22, 25, 31} Moreover, unexplained infertility was mostly defined when not finding a reason for infertility^{9, 12, 20, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30} or simply stating it as unexplained.^{10, 17} In some cases, authors specified conducting a series of tests such as blood tests (LH, FSH, prolactin), ultrasound, semen analysis, and sometimes diagnostic laparoscopy and endometrial biopsy.^{9, 12, 23, 24, 26, 30}

3.2 Prevalence of biopsy-verified CD in infertile women

We identified 11 studies^{9, 29, 31} with 1617 women undergoing screening for CD and where all women with a positive serology were followed up by duodenal/jejunal biopsy (Figure 2). In these women, 27 had a biopsy-confirmed CD (1.7%). Weighting the prevalence using a fixed-effect model, the pooled prevalence of CD was 0.7% (95% CI = 0.2%-1.2%). The heterogeneity was 39.2% (P = .087) indicating only a moderate heterogeneity, and for that reason (heterogeneity P > .05), we abstained from subgroup analyses. Removing the large Danish study by Grode et al,¹⁷ which dominated the analysis, the pooled prevalence was 1.2% (95% CI = 0.4%-2.0%).

When investigating only women with unexplained infertility, the pooled prevalence of biopsy-verified CD was 0.6% (95% CI = 0.0%-1.6%) based on nine studies^{9, 12-14, 16, 23, 24, 29, 31} with a total of 834 patients. The heterogeneity was 17.1% (P = .295).

3.3 Prevalence of positive CD serology in infertile women

We identified 20 studies^{9, 10, 29-31} with a total of 5158 women undergoing serological screening for CD but where only a subset of individuals underwent biopsy (Figure 3). The pooled prevalence of CD defined per serology (positive TTG, EMA, or gliadin antibodies) was 1.1% (95% CI = 0.6%-1.6%) (heterogeneity: P < .006; I² = 49.7%). In this analysis, the largest included study was that by Hogen-Esch et al,¹⁹ where 6/1038 (0.6%) infertile women were serologically positive for CD.

3.4 Risk of bias across studies

A meta-funnel analysis (Figure 4) revealed potential publication bias, since it seemed that small studies with a high prevalence of CD were more likely to be published than small studies with a low infertility prevalence.

4 DISCUSSION

In this meta-analysis, we observed that, when using a strict definition of CD (confirmation through biopsy and requiring Marsh III), CD is not more common in women with infertility than the general population. These findings differ from two previous meta-analyses,^{34, 35} which both observed a higher CD prevalence in both women with all-cause and unexplained infertility. For biopsy-proven CD, Castaño et al³⁴ found a pooled prevalence of 1.5% (95% CI = 0.6%-2.8%), while Singh et al³⁵ reported a pooled prevalence of 2.3% (95% CI = 1.4%-3.5%). One of the reasons for this difference in results might be the definition of CD. Some studies have considered Marsh I to be sufficient for CD diagnosis, while others have not used the Marsh criteria at all but merely reported that CD was confirmed with biopsy. Castaño et al³⁴ based their meta-analysis on reported numbers of patients with CD confirmed with biopsy, but did not specify if Marsh III was required. These different criteria for CD may account for the inconsistent findings.

The current and previous^{34, 35} meta-analyses differ in the studies included. The meta-analysis by Singh et al³⁵ only included five articles. Our search was wider (we considered more databases and included more search terms) and yielded more titles and abstracts to review than both the two earlier meta-analyses combined.^{34, 35} Despite our wider search, much the same papers were included in our meta-analysis and that of Castaño et al³⁴ after applying our exclusion criteria. We included 11 articles^{9, 29, 31} in the main analysis with biopsy-proven CD, while Castaño et al³⁴ included six articles.^{12-14, 16, 17, 27} Castaño et al³⁴ limited their analysis to articles with >100 infertile women. In contrast to Castaño et al,³⁴ we did not include Machado et al²⁷ in our final analyses as the latter study did not confirm all serology-positive cases with biopsy. For the analysis concerning serology-verified CD, our meta-analysis included 20 articles with the only additional article to Castaño et al³⁴ being Farzaneh et al³¹ With this in mind, there are differences in how the data have been interpreted. Furthermore, we excluded all women whose infertility was explainable at least in part by male infertility since male infertility may incorrectly lead to a misclassification of actual fertility in the woman. These women were included in the Singh et al and Castaño et al studies.^{34, 35}

A concern when selecting articles for our meta-analysis was the different definitions of infertility used in individual papers. Only some studies^{16, 21, 27, 29} specifically stated that they had used the WHO definition⁴² or a close version of it. This may have resulted in a different patient selection in meta-analyses. For example, it is unclear whether patients with recurrent spontaneous abortions were included as a reason for infertility. If recurrent spontaneous abortion was treated as a separate condition in the original article, those patients were not included in our analyses. Same-sex couples may also visit an infertility clinic although several studies^{13-17, 19, 22, 25, 31} have described excluding these patients.

Some of the studies included in our paper^{10, 19-22, 25-27, 30} have only based their CD diagnosis on positive serological markers. This results in a higher proportion of positive CD cases. IgA-TTG, the most commonly used antibody for screening of CD, has a high sensitivity and specificity (both 90.9%) but may still have a low positive predictive value⁴³ which is why we chose to calculate CD seroprevalence in infertility separately. Our results are in line with the previous studies on serological screening for CD.⁴³

It has been suggested that CD would be more common in unexplained infertility than in any (all-cause) infertility. If no cause is identified, the reason might be an unrecognized underlying disease such as CD. It is known that CD causes inflammation, malabsorption, and extraintestinal manifestations.⁵ Schiepatti et al⁶ suggest that women with CD more often have a shortened fertile period, amenorrhea, and hypogonadism. All these factors might potentially increase the risk of infertility in CD. Malabsorption-induced nutrient deficit of, for example, zinc, selenium, and folic acid might be another reason for adverse gynecologic and obstetric manifestation.⁴⁴ Finally, there may be autoimmune components in CD contributing to infertility. One such mechanism could be an inhibiting effect of anti-transglutaminase antibodies on endometrial angiogenesis.⁴⁴ In some individual studies in our meta-analysis, the prevalence of CD was much higher when considering only unexplained infertility,^{12, 16, 26, 27} although all of them had small sample sizes. In our analysis, we could not confirm a connection between unexplained infertility and CD, and the prevalence of CD in unexplained infertility was very similar to that in any infertility.

Infertility may be due to a number of conditions including polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis, and hypo- or hyperthyroidism, but also amenorrhea, weight loss, and malnutrition all of which are overrepresented in CD.^{44, 45} However, our main analysis did not reveal any association with infertility and hence none of the above factors were explored.

Our paper has some strengths and limitations. We excluded non-English papers since we were unable to extract complete data from such studies. In our meta-funnel analysis (Figure 4), we found a potential publication bias where small studies with a high CD prevalence were more likely to be published. Had a larger number of smaller studies with low CD prevalence been published, that would have driven the prevalence estimates down even further. We followed the PRISMA guidelines when carrying out our study. Two researchers independently of each other carried out the review of titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, thus ensuring objectiveness and a more accurate result.

Many previous studies have found a prevalence of CD of about 1% in the general population.² In the systematic review and meta-analysis by Singh et al,² a seroprevalence of 1.4% and a prevalence of biopsy-proven CD of 0.7% were found when analyzing articles screening general populations in all continents. The CD prevalence is possibly even higher in women since many autoimmune diseases, including CD, have been linked to female sex.^46-49 Our finding of a seroprevalence of 1.1% and a prevalence of biopsy-proven CD of 0.7% indicates that CD is not more common in women with infertility. A study by Dhalwani et al⁵⁰ further supports this claim. They examined potentially fertile women with CD and without CD in UK primary care to compare the rate of infertility and noted no increase in infertility in women with CD, except in a subset of women aged 25 to 29 years. We acknowledge the lack of fertile female controls as a limitation of our study.

Noteworthy is the low number of participants in most studies. Only 1 out of the 11 studies in our main analysis, and 6 out of the 20 studies in the analysis of seroprevalence of CD, had more than 200 participants (Table 1). Future studies should focus on examining larger well-defined populations of women with infertility and a control group to explore whether there is a connection between CD and infertility.

Knowledge of the prevalence of CD in women with infertility is important for screening decisions. In this meta-analysis, 0.7% of women with infertility had biopsy-verified CD. This indicates that CD is not more common in infertile women than in the general population.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Karolinska Institutet University Library for conducting the database search.

DISCLOSURES

Conflict of interest: The authors Ida Glimberg, Linnea Haggård, Benjamin Lebwohl, and Peter Green declare no conflicts of interest. Jonas F Ludvigsson coordinates a study on behalf of the Swedish IBD quality register (SWIBREG). This study has received funding from Janssen Corporation. Human /Animal rights: This article does not contain any studies with human and animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

Approval from Ethics Committee was not required.

APPENDIX A

1. MEDLINE

Interface: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily

Date of Search: 2020-02-06

Number of hits: 599

Comment: In Ovid, two or more words are automatically searched as phrases; ie no quotation marks are needed

Field labels

exp/ = exploded MeSH term
/ = non exploded MeSH term
.ti,ab,kf. = title, abstract and author keywords
adjx = within x words, regardless of order
* = truncation of word for alternate endings

1. Celiac disease/

2. exp Glutens/

3. exp Transglutaminases/

4. (celiac* or celiak* or coeliac* or coeliak* or non-tropical sprue or nontropical sprue).ti,ab,kf

5. (gluten* or gliadin*).ti,ab,kf

6. (endomys* OR antiendomys* OR ema OR aea OR transglutamin* OR anti-transglutamin* OR trans glutamin* OR ttg OR tta).ti,ab,kf

7. ((villus OR villous) ADJ3 atroph*).ti,ab,kf

8. 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7

9. exp Infertility/

10. exp Fertility/

11. exp Fertilization in Vitro/

12. (fertil* OR infertil* OR subfertil* OR sub-fertil* OR steril*).ti,ab,kf

13. ((in-vitro OR in vitro) ADJ3 fertil*).ti,ab,kf

14. 9 OR 10 OR 11 OR 12 OR 13

15. 8 AND 14

2. EMBASE

Interface: embase.com

Date of Search: 2020-02-06

Number of hits: 1062

Comment: Emtree is the controlled vocabulary in Embase

Field labels

/exp = exploded Emtree term
/de = non exploded Emtree term
ti,ab = title and abstract
NEAR/x = within x words, regardless of order
* = truncation of word for alternate endings

1. 'celiac disease'/de

2. ’gluten’/de

3. ’gliadin’/de

4. 'protein glutamine gamma glutamyltransferase'/de

5. 'protein glutamine gamma glutamyltransferase 2'/de

6. 'endomysium antibody'/de

7. ’endomysium’/de

8. (celiac* OR celiak* OR coeliac* OR coeliak* OR 'non-tropical sprue' OR 'nontropical sprue'):ti,ab,kw

9. gluten*:ti,ab,kw OR gliadin*:ti,ab,kw

10. (endomys* OR antiendomys* OR ema OR aea OR transglutamin* OR 'anti transglutamin*' OR ‘trans glutamin*’ OR ttg OR tga):ti,ab,kw

11. ((villus OR villous) NEAR/3 atroph*):ti,ab,kw

12.1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9 OR 10 OR 11

13. ‘infertility’/exp

14. ‘fertility’/exp

15. ‘in vitro fertilization’/exp

16. (fertil* OR infertil* OR subfertil* OR sub-fertil* OR steril*):ti,ab,kw

17. ((‘in vitro’) NEAR/3 fertil*):ti,ab,kw

18. 13 OR 14 OR 15 OR 16 OR 17

19. 12 AND 18

3. COCHRANE LIBRARY

Interface: Wiley

Date of Search: 2020-02-06

Number of hits: 41

Field labels

ti,ab,kw = title, abstract and author keywords
NEAR/x = within x words, regardless of order
* = truncation of word for alternate endings

1. (celiac* OR celiak* OR coeliac* OR coeliak* OR 'non-tropical sprue' OR 'nontropical sprue'):ab,ti,kw

2. (gluten* OR gliadin*):ab,ti,kw

3. (endomys* OR antiendomys* OR ema OR aea OR transglutamin* OR 'anti transglutamin*' OR ‘trans glutamin*’ OR ttg OR tga):ti,ab,kw

4. ((villus OR villous) NEAR/3 atroph*):ti,ab,kw

5. 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4

6. (fertil* OR infertil* OR subfertil* OR sub-fertil* OR steril*):ti,ab,kw

7. (‘in vitro’) NEAR/3 fertil*):ti,ab,kw

8. 6 OR 7

9. 5 AND 8

4. WEB OF SCIENCE CORE COLLECTION

Interface: Clarivate Analytics

Date of Search: 2020-02-06

Number of hits: 1277

Field labels

TS/Topic = title, abstract, author keywords and Keywords Plus
NEAR/x = within x words, regardless of order
= truncation of word for alternate endings

Note: sometimes “quotation marks” are needed for single search terms to avoid automatic term mapping (lemmatization).

1. TOPIC: (celiac* OR celiak* OR coeliac* OR coeliak* OR 'non-tropical sprue' OR 'nontropical sprue')

2. TOPIC: (gluten* OR gliadin*)

3. TOPIC: (endomys* OR antiendomys* OR ema OR aea OR transglutamin* OR 'anti transglutamin*' OR ‘trans glutamin*’ OR ttg OR tga)

4. TOPIC: (((villus OR villous) NEAR/3 atroph*))

5. 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4

6. TOPIC: (fertil* OR infertil* OR subfertil* OR sub-fertil* OR steril*)

7. TOPIC: (‘in vitro’ NEAR/3 fertil*

8. 6 OR 7

9. 5 AND 8

REFERENCES

1Lebwohl B, Ludvigsson JF, Green PHR. Celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity. BMJ. 2015; 5(351): h4347.
10.1136/bmj.h4347
Google Scholar
2Singh P, Arora A, Strand TA, et al. Global prevalence of celiac disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2018; 16(6): 823-836.e2.
10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.037
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Ludvigsson JF, Lindelöf B, Zingone F, Ciacci C. Psoriasis in a nationwide cohort study of patients with celiac disease. J Invest Dermatol. 2011; 131(10): 2010-2016.
10.1038/jid.2011.162
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Zingone F, Swift GL, Card TR, Sanders DS, Ludvigsson JF, Bai JC. Psychological morbidity of celiac disease: a review of the literature. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2015; 3(2): 136-145.
10.1177/2050640614560786
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Ludvigsson JF, Bai JC, Biagi F, et al. Diagnosis and management of adult coeliac disease: guidelines from the British Society of Gastroenterology. Gut. 2014; 63(8): 1210-1228.
10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306578
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Schiepatti A, Sprio E, Sanders DS, Lovati E, Biagi F. Coeliac disease and obstetric and gynaecological disorders: where are we now? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 31(4): 425-433.
10.1097/MEG.0000000000001361
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Ludvigsson JF, Montgomery SM, Ekbom A. Celiac disease and risk of adverse fetal outcome: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2005; 129(2): 454-463.
10.1016/j.gastro.2005.05.065
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Morris JS, Adjukiewicz AB, Read AE. Coeliac infertility: an indication for dietary gluten restriction? Lancet Lond Engl. 1970; 1(7640): 213-214.
10.1016/S0140-6736(70)90572-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Meloni GF, Dessole S, Vargiu N, Tomasi PA, Musumeci S. The prevalence of coeliac disease in infertility. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 1999; 14(11): 2759-2761.
10.1093/humrep/14.11.2759
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Fasano A, Berti I, Gerarduzzi T, et al. Prevalence of celiac disease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the United States: a large multicenter study. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163(3): 286-292.
10.1001/archinte.163.3.286
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Collin P, Reunala T, Rasmussen M, et al. High incidence and prevalence of adult coeliac disease. Augmented diagnostic approach. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997; 32(11): 1129-1133.
10.3109/00365529709002992
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Collin P, Vilska S, Heinonen PK, Hällström O, Pikkarainen P. Infertility and coeliac disease. Gut. 1996; 39(3): 382-384.
10.1136/gut.39.3.382
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Tiboni GM, de Vita MG, Faricelli R, Giampietro F, Liberati M. Serological testing for celiac disease in women undergoing assisted reproduction techniques. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2006; 21(2): 376-379.
10.1093/humrep/dei314
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Shamaly H, Mahameed A, Sharony A, Shamir R. Infertility and celiac disease: do we need more than one serological marker? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004; 83(12): 1184-1188.
10.1111/j.0001-6349.2004.00592.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Wilson C, Eade OE, Elstein M, Wright R. Subclinical coeliac disease and infertility. Br Med J. 1976; 2(6029): 215-216.
10.1136/bmj.2.6029.215-a
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
16Choi JM, Lebwohl B, Wang J, et al. Increased prevalence of celiac disease in patients with unexplained infertility in the United States: a prospective study. J Reprod Med. 2011; 56(5-6): 199-203.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Grode LB, Agerholm IE, Humaidan P, et al. Unrecognised coeliac disease among men and women undergoing fertility treatment: a screening study. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2018; 6(10): 1477-1484.
10.1177/2050640618796750
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Grode L, Møller Jensen T, Parkner T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care test for celiac disease antibody screening among infertile patients. Inflamm Intest Dis. 2019; 4(3): 123-130.
10.1159/000501520
PubMed Google Scholar
19Hogen Esch CE, Van Rijssen MJL, Roos A, et al. Screening for unrecognized coeliac disease in subfertile couples. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011; 46(12): 1423-1428.
10.3109/00365521.2011.615858
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Jackson JE, Rosen M, McLean T, Moro J, Croughan M, Cedars MI. Prevalence of celiac disease in a cohort of women with unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2008; 89(4): 1002-1004.
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.04.053
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21Gunn B, Murphy KE, Greenblatt EM. Unexplained infertility and undiagnosed celiac disease: study of a multiethnic Canadian population. J Obstet Gynaecol Can JOGC. 2018; 40(3): 293-298.
10.1016/j.jogc.2017.07.008
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Juneau CR, Franasiak JM, Goodman LR, et al. Celiac disease is not more prevalent in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization and does not affect reproductive outcomes with or without treatment: a large prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2018; 110(3): 437-442.
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.030
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Karaca N, Yılmaz R, Aktun LH, Batmaz G, Karaca Ç. Is there any relationship between unrecognized Celiac disease and unexplained infertile couples? Turk J Gastroenterol Off J Turk Soc Gastroenterol. 2015; 26(6): 484-486.
10.5152/tjg.2015.0123
Web of Science® Google Scholar
24Khoshbaten M, Nejad MR, Farzady L, Sharifi N, Hashemi SH, Rostami K. Fertility disorder associated with celiac disease in males and females: fact or fiction? J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2011; 37(10): 1308-1312.
10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01518.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25Kolho K-L, Tiitinen A, Tulppala M, Unkila-Kallio L, Savilahti E. Screening for coeliac disease in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage or infertility. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999; 106(2): 171-173.
10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08218.x
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Kumar A, Meena M, Begum N, et al. Latent celiac disease in reproductive performance of women. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95(3): 922-927.
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27de SL Machado AP, Silva LR, Zausner B, de A Oliveira J, Diniz RD, de Oliveira J. Undiagnosed celiac disease in women with infertility. J Reprod Med. 2013; 58(1-2): 61-66.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28Noor HA, Farhood HF. Study some of allergic markers and food allergy in sub-fertile women. Int J PharmTech Res. 2016; 9: 347–355.
Google Scholar
29Sabzevari A, Yazdanbod A, Aghdam FK, Maleki N. Prevalence of celiac disease among Iranian couples with unexplained infertility: a prospective study. J Reprod Med. 2017; 62(6): 659-664.
Google Scholar
30Vanciková Z, Chlumecký V, Sokol D, et al. The serologic screening for celiac disease in the general population (blood donors) and in some high-risk groups of adults (patients with autoimmune diseases, osteoporosis and infertility) in the Czech Republic. Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2002; 47(6): 753-758.
10.1007/BF02818684
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31Farzaneh F, Khalili M. Prevalence of celiac in infertile women due to unexplained infertility. Prensa Medica. 2019; 105(2). 317–319.
Google Scholar
32Zugna D, Richiardi L, Akre O, Stephansson O, Ludvigsson JF. A nationwide population-based study to determine whether coeliac disease is associated with infertility. Gut. 2010; 59(11): 1471-1475.
10.1136/gut.2010.219030
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33Tata LJ, Card TR, Logan RFA, Hubbard RB, Smith CJP, West J. Fertility and pregnancy-related events in women with celiac disease: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2005; 128(4): 849-855.
10.1053/j.gastro.2005.02.017
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34Castaño M, Gómez-Gordo R, Cuevas D, Núñez C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of coeliac disease in women with infertility. Nutrients. 2019; 11(8). 1–15.
10.3390/nu11081950
Web of Science® Google Scholar
35Singh P, Arora S, Lal S, Strand TA, Makharia GK. Celiac disease in women with infertility: a meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016; 50(1): 33-39.
10.1097/MCG.0000000000000285
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000100.
10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37Humm KC, Wu LH, Merport Modest A, Leffler D, Penzias AS. Prevalence of celiac disease is higher among women with infertility. Gastroenterology. 2014; 146(5): S-468.
10.1016/S0016-5085(14)61675-9
Google Scholar
38Juneau CR, Marin D, Scott K, Morin SJ, Neal SA. Cares trial: celiac disease and reproductive effects. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107(3): e6-e7.
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.012
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39Remes-Troche JM, Sanchez Vargas LA, Meixueiro A, et al. Celiac disease screening in patients previously diagnosed with infertility. A prospective study in Mexican population. Gastroenterology. 2014; 146(5): S-468.
10.1016/S0016-5085(14)61677-2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
40Niveloni SI, Costa AF, Borghi C, et al. Prevalence of celiac disease autoimmunity in women with indication of high complexity assisted reproduction treatment. Preliminary results of a prospective study. Gastroenterology. 2016; 150(4): S684.
10.1016/S0016-5085(16)32330-7
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
41Petrarca L, Pontone S, Nenna R. Celiac disease screening in infertile women: is it worth it? J Obstet Gynaecol Can JOGC. 2019; 41(3): 281-282.
10.1016/j.jogc.2018.09.010
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
42 WHO | Infertility definitions and terminology [Internet]. WHO. World Health Organization; [cited 2020 May 4]. Available from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/infertility/definitions/en/
Google Scholar
43Hopper AD, Cross SS, Hurlstone DP, et al. Pre-endoscopy serological testing for coeliac disease: evaluation of a clinical decision tool. BMJ. 2007; 334(7596): 729.
10.1136/bmj.39133.668681.BE
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44Tersigni C, Castellani R, de Waure C, et al. Celiac disease and reproductive disorders: meta-analysis of epidemiologic associations and potential pathogenic mechanisms. Hum Reprod Update. 2014; 20(4): 582-593.
10.1093/humupd/dmu007
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
45Boutari C, Pappas PD, Mintziori G, et al. The effect of underweight on female and male reproduction. Metabolism. 2020; 107: 154229.
10.1016/j.metabol.2020.154229
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
46Mustalahti K, Catassi C, Reunanen A, et al. The prevalence of celiac disease in Europe: results of a centralized, international mass screening project. Ann Med. 2010; 42(8): 587-595.
10.3109/07853890.2010.505931
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
47Rubio-Tapia A, Ludvigsson JF, Brantner TL, Murray JA, Everhart JE. The prevalence of celiac disease in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107(10): 1538-1544; quiz 1537, 1545.
10.1038/ajg.2012.219
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
48Vilppula A, Collin P, Mäki M, et al. Undetected coeliac disease in the elderly: a biopsy-proven population-based study. Dig Liver Dis Off J Ital Soc Gastroenterol Ital Assoc Study Liver. 2008; 40(10): 809-813.
CAS Google Scholar
49Makharia GK, Verma AK, Amarchand R, et al. Prevalence of celiac disease in the northern part of India: a community based study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 26(5): 894-900.
10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06606.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
50Dhalwani NN, West J, Sultan AA, Ban L, Tata LJ. Women with celiac disease present with fertility problems no more often than women in the general population. Gastroenterology. 2014; 147(6): 1267-1274.e1; quiz e13–14.
10.1053/j.gastro.2014.08.025
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume20, Issue2

April 2021

Pages 224-233

The prevalence of celiac disease in women with infertility—A systematic review with meta-analysis