The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Validation of the GerdQ questionnaire for the diagnosis of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease
Abstract
Summary: Background: The diagnosis of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a challenge as both invasive methods and symptom‐based strategies have limitations. The symptom‐based management of GERD in primary care may be further optimised with the use of a questionnaire. Aim: To assess the diagnostic validity of the GerdQ questionnaire in patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD. Methods: Patients with symptoms suggestive of GERD without alarm features, underwent upper endoscopy, and if normal, pH‐metry. Patients were followed for 4 weeks and GerdQ was completed blinded to the investigator at both visits. Reflux oesophagitis or pathological acid exposure was used as diagnostic references for GERD. The diagnostic accuracy for GERD on symptom response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was assessed. Results: Among the 169 patients, a GerdQ cutoff ≥9 gave the best balance with regard to sensitivity, 66% (95% CI: 58–74), and specificity, 64% (95% CI: 41–83), for GERD. The high prevalence of reflux oesophagitis (81%) resulted in a high proportion of true positives, but at the same time a high proportion of false‐negatives. Consequently, GerdQ had a high positive predictive value, 92% (95% CI: 86–97), but a low negative predictive value, 22% (95% CI: 13–34), for GERD. Symptom resolution on PPI therapy had high sensitivity, 76% (95% CI: 66–84), but low specificity, 33% (95% CI: 17–53), for GERD. Conclusions: GerdQ is a useful complementary tool for the diagnosis of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease in primary care. The implementation of GerdQ could reduce the need for upper endoscopy and improve resource utilisation. Symptom resolution on proton pump inhibitor did not predict gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease.
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
Gender Difference of Gastric Emptying in Healthy Volunteers and Patients with Functional Dyspepsia
Mori, H., Suzuki, H., Matsuzaki, J., Taniguchi, K., Shimizu, T., Yamane, T., Masaoka, T., & Kanai, T. (2017) · Digestion · doi:10.1159/000452359 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Jonasson, C., Wernersson, B., Hoff, D. A. L., & Hatlebakk, J. G.
- Venue
- Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-01-07
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 564-572
- ISSN
- 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2036
- OpenAlex
- W2132709597
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.26
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validation of the GerdQ questionnaire for the diagnosis of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/apt.12204
- The paper
- Jonasson, C., Wernersson, B., Hoff, D. A. L., & Hatlebakk, J. G. (2013). Validation of the GerdQ questionnaire for the diagnosis of gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.12204
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.