ReviewArchive of clinical cases2025
Functional dyspepsia assessment - current diagnostic methods and new promising techniques.
Review in Archive of clinical cases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation targets the brain-gut axis to treat functional dyspepsia: a scoping review of clinical evidence and mechanistic research.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- MRI-Based Gastric Function Assessment in Patients With Functional Dyspepsia.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional Dyspepsia (FD) is a disorder of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) characterized by chronic symptoms without an organic cause. Diagnosis follows the Rome IV criteria, requiring symptoms for at least six months. FD affects up to 20% of the population, significantly impacting the quality of life and healthcare systems. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is often performed to rule out organic disorders but has limited utility in typical FD cases. FD's etiology involves gastric motility alterations, dysbiosis, and immune and central nervous system dysfunction. This review summarizes FD diagnostic methods. A PubMed search was conducted using keywords: Functional Dyspepsia, Gastric Motility Assessment, ROME IV, and Gastric Emptying (GE). Relevant studies were manually reviewed, excluding those unrelated to FD or gastric motility assessment. Despite extensive research on organic gastrointestinal diseases, FD's pathophysiology remains unclear, necessitating further studies. Diagnostic methods include the rapid water and nutrient drink tests for assessing impaired gastric accommodation, hypersensitivity, and delayed gastric emptying. Drinking-ultrasonography and three-dimensional ultrasound evaluate gastric motor and sensory functions. MRI-based assessments provide detailed stomach volume and geometry insights. Gastric emptying scintigraphy and the 13C-gastric emptying breath test measure gastric emptying rates. High-resolution electrogastrography (HR-EGG) assesses gastric myoelectrical activity, while EndoFLIP measures sphincter function. Functional MRI and PET scans analyze brain activity related to FD symptoms. These methodologies enhance the understanding and management of FD by providing objective measures of gastric motility, accommodation, and sensory function. The integration of these advanced techniques into clinical practice holds the potential to move beyond symptom-based diagnosis, allowing for a more precise, individualized approach to treatment. Standardizing these diagnostic modalities will be crucial in optimizing patient care and alleviating the burden of FD on healthcare systems.
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.