The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in primary care patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia: the Canadian Adult Dyspepsia Empiric Treatment – Prompt Endoscopy (CADET–PE) study
Abstract
Summary: Background: Uninvestigated dyspepsia is common in family practice. The prevalence of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal findings (CSFs) in adult uninvestigated dyspepsia patients, and their predictability based on history, is unknown. Methods: Prompt endoscopy was performed within 10 days of referral, in 1040 adult patients presenting with uninvestigated dyspepsia at 49 Canadian family practitioner centres. Subsequent management strategies during a 6‐month follow‐up period were determined by the individual family practitioners. Results: CSFs were identified in 58% (603/1040) of patients. Erosive oesophagitis was most common (43%; N = 451); peptic ulcer was uncommon (5.3%; N = 55). Alarm symptoms were uncommon (2.8%; N = 29). Most patients had at least three dyspepsia symptoms, more than 80% had at least six, and approximately half had eight or more. Based on the dominant symptom, 463 (45%) patients had ulcer‐like, 393 (38%) had reflux‐like and 184 (18%) had dysmotility‐like dyspepsia. The patients' dominant symptom was not predictive of endoscopic findings. Oesophagitis was more common in those with dominant reflux‐like symptoms and was the most common finding in all subgroups. The prevalence of gastroduodenal findings was similar in all symptom subgroups. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection (30%; 301/1013) was associated with gastroduodenal findings. Conclusions: Dyspepsia subclassifications, based on dominant symptom, are of limited value in predicting the presence and nature of CSFs. Oesophagitis was by far the most common diagnosis (43% of patients). CSFs were common in uninvestigated dyspepsia patients and their nature suggests patients could be initially treated effectively, without endoscopy, using empirical acid suppressive therapy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Functional Gastroduodenal Disorders
Tack, J., Talley, N. J., Camilleri, M., Holtmann, G., Hu, P., Malagelada, J.-R., & Stanghellini, V. (2006) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.059 · Cited by 2,418
Proton pump inhibitors and gastric neoplasia: Figure 1
Kuipers, E. J. (2006) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2005.090514 · Cited by 115
van Zanten, S. V., Armstrong, D., Chiba, N., Flook, N., White, R. J., Chakraborty, B., & Gasco, A. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00751.x · Cited by 89
Self-citationFunctional dyspepsia and gastroparesis: one disease or two
Lacy, B. E. (2012) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.104 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Thomson, A. B. R., Barkun, A. N., Armstrong, D., Chiba, N., White, R. J., Daniels, S., Escobedo, S., Chakraborty, B., Sinclair, P., & Veldhuyzen Van Zanten, S. J. O.
- Venue
- Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1481-1491
- ISSN
- 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2036
- OpenAlex
- W2046404013
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.