ArticleJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility2026
Validation of the Leuven Postprandial Distress Scale According to the Rome IV Criteria for Functional Dyspepsia.
Article in Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: : The Leuven Postprandial Distress Scale (LPDS) is a validated patient reported outcome (PRO) measure for functional dyspepsia (FD)/postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) patients according to Rome III criteria. However, meal-related nausea or epigastric pain, part of PDS in Rome IV, were not addressed in this construct. Also, focus groups identified fatigue as a frequently reported complaint for which the European Medicines Agency requested further analysis. Our aim is to validate the LPDS in FD/PDS as defined by Rome IV criteria and to optimize the model by assessing the value of adding extra items to this questionnaire. Methods: : The questionnaire was validated in 3 different Rome IV FD/PDS patient cohorts recruited for controlled clinical trials. Additional questions in the diary regarding symptom relationship to meal and fatigue were evaluated. Anchor scores were the patient assessment of gastrointestinal symptom severity index, Short-form Nepean dyspepsia index, the overall treatment evaluation and overall symptom severity questionnaires. Results: : The LPDS Construct validity was confirmed for Rome IV-defined PDS. Psychometric analysis did not support inclusion of fatigue, nausea, meal-related or meal-unrelated, and meal-related epigastric pain, due to low loading or poor model fit. Conclusions: : The LPDS questionnaire showed good reliability and responsiveness, and can be confidently used as a validated tool in Rome IV PDS populations. Data did not support adding accessory symptoms to the construct, due to low loading or poor model fit.
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.