Testing strategies and follow-up for coeliac disease in a general internal medicine outpatient department from 2000 to 2005

PRINCIPLES: Coeliac disease (gluten sensitive enteropathy) is a genetically determined disorder with an incidence in the general population that is comparable to type 2 diabetes mellitus. Awareness of this fact and of the often atypical and oligosymptomatic manifestations is only now gaining ground in the medical profession. A high index of suspicion is important in order to minimise diagnostic and therapeutic delay. METHODS: Testing patterns and follow-up for coeliac disease in our institution have been analysed retrospectively for the past five years. The current literature was reviewed with respect to recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 271 patients were tested for coeliac disease over a period of five years. Only in 24 patients were positive results found; after further work-up, the final number of cases with certain or presumed coeliac disease was four. Followup was often difficult, many patients being lost after a single visit. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the number of tests ordered in our institution, more often for abdominal than atypical symptoms, has started to increase in the past two years. It also showed that screening tests have found their place in general clinical practice, while the final choice of tests needs to be determined in accordance with available guidelines and local resources. Upper endoscopy with small bowel biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis, but its place in follow-up is less certain. Coeliac disease is a disorder for which there is a definite treatment (gluten free diet); if it is left untreated diminished quality of life and potentially serious complications may ensue. Further education of the medical profession regarding coeliac disease, its incidence, presentation and treatment, is clearly indicated..

To eat or not to eat—relationship of lichen herbivory by snails with secondary compounds and field frequency of lichens

Aims The biochemical defense of lichens against herbivores and its relationship to lichen frequency are poorly understood. Therefore, we tested whether chemical compounds in lichens act as feeding defense or rather as stimulus for snail herbivory among lichens and whether experimental feeding by snails is related to lichen frequency in the field. Methods In a no-choice feeding experiment, we fed 24 lichen species to snails of two taxa from the Clausilidae and Enidae families and compared untreated lichens and lichens with compounds removed by acetone rinsing. Then, we related experimental lichen consumption with the frequency of lichen species among 158 forest plots in the field (Schwäbische Alb, Germany), where we had also sampled snail and lichen species. Important findings In five lichen species, snails preferred treated samples over untreated controls, indicating chemical feeding defense, and vice versa in two species, indicating chemical feeding stimulus. Interestingly, compared with less frequent lichen species, snails consumed more of untreated and less of treated samples of more frequent lichen species. Removing one outlier species resulted in the loss of a significant positive relationship when untreated samples were analyzed separately. However, the interaction between treatment and lichen frequency remained significant when excluding single species or including snail genus instead of taxa, indicating that our results were robust and that lumping the species to two taxa was justified. Our results imply lichen-feeding snails to prefer frequent lichens and avoid less frequent ones because of secondary compound recognition. This supports the idea that consumers adapt to the most abundant food source.

Does the Use of Mobile Devices (Tablets and Smartphones) Affect Stated Choice Behavior in Web Surveys? An Application to Environmental Valuation

Web surveys are becoming increasingly popular in survey research. Compared with face-to-face, telephone and mail surveys, web surveys may contain a different and new source of measurement error and bias: the type of device that respondents use to answer the survey questions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that tests whether the use of mobile devices affects survey characteristics and stated preferences in a web-based choice experiment. The web survey was carried out in Germany with 3,400 respondents, of which 12 per cent used a mobile device (i.e. tablet or smartphone), and comprised a stated choice experiment on externalities of renewable energy production using wind, solar and biomass. Our main finding is that survey characteristics such as interview length and acquiescence tendency are affected by the device used. In contrast to what might be expected, we find that, compared with respondents using desktop computers and laptops, mobile device users spent more time to answer the survey and are less likely to be prone to acquiescence bias. In the choice experiment, mobile device users tended to be more consistent in their stated choices, and there are differences in willingness to pay between both subsamples.

Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?

Web surveys are becoming increasingly popular in survey research including stated preference surveys. Compared with face-to-face, telephone and mail surveys, web surveys may contain a different and new source of measurement error and bias: the type of device that respondents use to answer the survey questions. This is the first study that tests whether the use of mobile devices, tablets or smartphones, affects survey characteristics and stated preferences in a web-based choice experiment. The web survey on expanding renewable energy production in Germany was carried out with 3182 respondents, of which 12% used a mobile device. Propensity score matching is used to account for selection bias in the use of mobile devices for survey completion. We find that mobile device users spent more time than desktop/laptop users to answer the survey. Yet, desktop/laptop users and mobile device users do not differ in acquiescence tendency as an indicator of extreme response patterns. For mobile device users only, we find a negative correlation between screen size and interview length and a positive correlation between screen size and acquiescence tendency. In the choice experiment data, we do not find significant differences in the tendency to choose the status quo option and scale between both subsamples. However, some of the estimates of implicit prices differ, albeit not in a unidirectional fashion. Model results for mobile device users indicate a U-shaped relationship between error variance and screen size. Together, the results suggest that using mobile devices is not detrimental to survey quality.