Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2006
Limited impact on endoscopy demand from a primary care based 'test and treat' dyspepsia management strategy: the results of a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Pooled it
- Prevention of overuse: A view on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
- A categorisation of problems and solutions to improve patient referrals from primary to specialty care.BMC health services research · 2018Review
- Performance of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for dyspepsia in Saudi population: prospective observational study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Observational
- Non-invasive diagnosis of H pylori infection: evaluation of serological tests with and without current infection marker CIM.World journal of gastroenterology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHelicobacter pylori testing has been suggested as an alternative to endoscopy for young patients with dyspepsia. Secondary care studies have suggested that demand for endoscopy among this group could be reduced by up to 74%. However, the effect of H. pylori testing in the primary care setting, where the majority of dyspepsia is managed, is unclear.
aimTo determine the effects of providing a H. pylori serology service for GPs upon demand for open access endoscopy. DESIGN OF STUDY: A prospective randomised controlled trial.
settingForty-seven general practices in Gloucestershire.
methodGeneral practices were stratified by endoscopy referral rate and randomised into two groups. The intervention group was provided with access to H. pylori serology testing and encouraged to use it in place of endoscopy for patients aged under 55 years with dyspepsia. Endpoints were referral for endoscopy and serology use.
resultsThere was a significant reduction in referrals for endoscopy in the intervention group compared to the control group: 18.8% (95% confidence interval = 5.0 to 30.6%; P = 0.009).
conclusionsProviding GPs with H. pylori serology testing reduced demand for open access endoscopy, but by less than previous studies had predicted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16638253PMC1837846What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.