ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2009
Managing dyspepsia.
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inflammation at the crossroads ofFuture microbiology · 2022Article
- Acupuncture for Functional Dyspepsia: What Strength Does It Have? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2016Review
- Duodenal epithelial transport in functional dyspepsia: Role of serotonin.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2013Article
- The role ofAnnals of gastroenterology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of dyspepsia in the general population is as high as 40%, and its management represents a considerable financial burden to the health care system. Causes of dyspepsia amenable to medical therapy include peptic ulcer and functional dyspepsia, and testing for Helicobacter pylori and treating positive individuals is beneficial in both conditions. Individuals presenting for the first time with uninvestigated dyspepsia, age greater than 50 years, or alarm features require upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy to exclude gastroesophageal malignancy. Upper GI endoscopy for younger individuals without alarm features is not cost-effective compared with the "test and treat" approach. Test and treat and empirical acid-suppression using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) have similar costs and effects. Recent evidence suggests that empirical acid suppression commencing with antacids is as effective as PPI. Screening and treatment of H. pylori in PPI users and the community may reduce the costs of managing dyspepsia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.