Cited by 82Gastrointestinal motility and disordersGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentGastroesophageal reflux and treatments

Epidemiology and Diagnosis of Gastroparesis in the United States: A Population-based Study

Open access
Syed, Aslam R., Wolfe, Michael M., Calles-Escandon, Jorge·2020·Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology

Abstract

Goals: We aimed to establish the epidemiological characteristics and documentation of diagnostic workup for gastroparesis (GP). Background: No study has used a national database to evaluate the prevalence, demographics, and associated comorbid conditions of GP, and document rates of proper diagnosis. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional population-based study using the Explorys Platform to determine the prevalence of GP in a large and diverse population highly representative of the US population and to examine the diagnostic approach of GP. Data collected were individual characteristics from electronic medical records (EMRs) included age, ethnicity/race, sex, diagnostic report for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and gastric emptying study (GES). Results: A total of 43,827,910 medical records were surveyed (1999 to 2014), of which 69,950 had a diagnosis of GP, yielding an overall prevalence of 0.16%. We identified 249,930 EMRs with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), and 2,940,280 EMR’s with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), of which 11,470 (4.59%) and 38,670 (1.31%) EMR’s had concurrent GP, respectively. The remainder 19,810 EMRs with a diagnosis of GP were classified as having idiopathic GP. In all three subgroups, women and Caucasians had the highest prevalence of GP. The diagnosis of GP was confirmed by both GES and EGD in 9,950 of patients (14.22%). For patients with T1DM, T2DM, or idiopathic GP, GP was confirmed by both diagnostic tests in 16.8%, 14.0%, and 13.2%, respectively. Conclusions: Our estimated rates of prevalence of GP in T1DM and T2DM indicate that GP is not a common clinical complication in these populations. Majority of EMRs that indicated a diagnosis of GP did not include any documentation of definitive diagnostic testing (EGD and/or GES).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mcg.0000000000001231

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A large study conducted in 2020 on more than 43 million medical records in the United States reported that only 0.16% of patients had a documented diagnosis of gastroparesis.

    “For example, a large study conducted in 2020 on more than 43 million medical records in the United States reported that only 0.16% of patients had a documented diagnosis of gastroparesis [9, 10].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [1]Bharucha AE Epidemiology and natural history of gastroparesis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2015; 1: 9– 19. PMC4323583 25667019
  2. [2]Liu N Abell T Gastroparesis updates on pathogenesis and management. Gut Liver. 2017; 5: 579– 589. PMC5593319 28535580
  3. [3]Parkman HP Yates K Hasler WL National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium. Clinical features of idiopathic gastroparesis vary with sex, body mass, symptom onset, delay in gastric emptying and gastroparesis severity. Gastroenterology. 2011; 1: 101– 115. PMC3089423 20965184
  4. [4]Abell TL Bernstein RK Cutts T Treatment of gastroparesis: a multidisciplinary clinical review. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2006; 18: 263– 283. 16553582
  5. [5]Horowitz M Harding PE Maddox AF Gastric and oesophageal emptying in patients with type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia. 1989; 32: 151– 159. 2753246
  6. [6]Horowitz M Maddox AF Wishart JM Relationships betweel oesophageal transit and solid and liquid gastric emptying in diabetes mellitus. Eur J Nucl Med. 1991; 18: 229– 234. 2070801
  7. [9]Wang YR Fisher RS Parkman HP Gastroparesis-related hospitalizations in the United States: trends, characteristics, and outcomes, 1995–2004. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 103: 313– 322. 18047541
  8. [10]Jones KL Russo A Stevens JE Predictors of delayed gastric emptying in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24: 1264– 1269. 11423513
  9. [11]Kong MF Horowitz M Jones KL Natural history of diabetic gastroparesis. Diabetes Care. 1999; 22: 503– 507. 10097936
  10. [12]Parkman HP Idiopathic Gastroparesis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2015; 1: 59– 68. PMC4324534 25667023
  11. [13]Wadhwa V Mehta D Jobanputra Y Healthcare utilization and costs associated with gastroparesis. World J Gastroenterol. 2017; 24: 4428– 4436. PMC5487507 28706426
  12. [14]Bielefeldt K Gastroparesis: concepts, controversies, and challenges. Scientifica. 2012; 2012: 424802. 24278691 PMC3820446
  13. [16]Abell TL Camilleri M Donohoe K Consensus recommendations for gastric emptying scintigraphy: a joint report of the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 3: 753– 776. 18028513
  14. [17]Tougas G Eaker EY Abell TL Assessment of gastric emptying using a low fat meal: establishment of international control values. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000; 6: 1456– 1462. 10894578
  15. [18]Ajaj W Goehde SC Papanikolaou N Real time high resolution magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of gastric motility disorders. Gut. 2004; 9: 1256– 1261. PMC1774201 15306580
  16. [21]Camilleri M Parkman HP Shafi MA Clinical guideline: management of gastroparesis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013; 1: 18– 28. PMC3722580 23147521

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Syed, A. R., Wolfe, M. M., & Calles-Escandon, J.
Affiliations
  • Allegheny Health Network (US)
  • Department of Internal Medicine
Corresponding author
  • Syed, Aslam R.
  • Wolfe, Michael M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
Published
2020-01
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
50-54
ISSN
0192-0790 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2945512725
Cited by
82
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3
FWCI
7.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Keywords
gastroparesis, prevalence, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, idiopathic gastroparesis, gastric emptying study, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, diagnostic testing, comorbidities, electronic health records
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Gastric Emptying, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Endoscopy, Digestive System, Gastroparesis, Young Adult

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