ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2020
Predictive value of alarm symptoms in patients with Rome IV dyspepsia: A cross-sectional study.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gastric cancer secondary prevention in dyspeptic patients.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026Article
- Prevalence and factors associated with organic dyspepsia in older adults with dyspepsia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinically significant endoscopic findings in patients of dyspepsia with no warning symptoms: A cross-sectional study.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo studies have evaluated the predictive value of alarm symptoms for organic dyspepsia and organic upper gastrointestinal (GI) diseases based on Rome IV criteria in the Chinese population.
aimTo evaluate the predictive value of alarm symptoms for dyspeptic patients based on Rome IV criteria.
methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study of dyspepsia patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria at two academic urban tertiary-care centers from March 2018 to January 2019. Basic demographic data, dyspeptic information, alarm symptoms, lifestyle, examination results, family history and outpatient cost information were collected. Dyspepsia patients with normal findings on upper GI endoscopy, epigastric ultrasound and laboratory examination and without
resultsA total of 381 patients were enrolled in the study, including 266 functional dyspepsia patients and 115 organic dyspepsia patients. There were 24 patients with organic upper GI disease among patients with organic dyspepsia. We found that based on the Rome IV criteria, alarm symptoms were of limited value in differentiating organic dyspepsia and organic upper GI diseases from functional dyspepsia. Age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.056,
conclusionMost alarm symptoms had poor predictive value for organic dyspepsia and organic upper GI diseases based on Rome IV criteria. Gastroscopic screening should not be based solely on alarm symptoms.
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.