Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 845

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy

Rex, Douglas K, Petrini, John L, Baron, Todd H, Chak, Amitabh, Cohen, Jonathan, Deal, Stephen E, Hoffman, Brenda, Jacobson, Brian C, Mergener, Klaus, Petersen, Bret T, Safdi, Michael A, Faigel, Douglas O, Pike, Irving M·2006·The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The optimal approach for management of patients with dyspepsia has not been determined. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three strategies for management of dyspepsia: empirical antisecretory therapy, testing for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), or a combination of the two. METHODS: Cluster-randomized trial in general practices. Initial treatment with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) was performed in 222 patients, H. pylori test-and-eradicate in 250 patients, and PPI followed by H. pylori-testing if symptoms improved in 250 patients. Symptoms, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and use of resources were recorded during a 1-yr follow-up. RESULTS: The prevalence of H. pylori infection was 24%. We found no difference among the three strategies (p=0.16) in terms of the proportion of days without dyspeptic symptoms. After 1 yr gastrointestinal symptom scores and quality-of-life scores had improved significantly and equally in the three groups (p<0.001), but no statistically significant differences were found among the groups. The mean use of endoscopies per patient after 1 yr was higher in the PPI group (0.36 [95% CI 0.30-0.43]) than in the test-and-eradicate group (0.28 [95% CI 0.23-0.34]) and the combination group (0.22 [95% CI 0.17-0.27]), p=0.02. H. pylori-positive patients given eradication therapy had more days without dyspeptic symptoms (p<0.001), used less antisecretory therapy (p<0.01), and were more satisfied (p<0.001) than H. pylori-negative patients. CONCLUSION: The strategies based on H. pylori test enjoyed similar symptom resolution, but reduced endoscopic workload and lower 1-yr total costs compared with empirical antisecretory 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 845

Metadata

Authors
Rex, D. K., Petrini, J. L., Baron, T. H., Chak, A., Cohen, J., Deal, S. E., Hoffman, B., Jacobson, B. C., Mergener, K., Petersen, B. T., Safdi, M. A., Faigel, D. O., & Pike, I. M.
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2006-04
Volume
101
Issue
4
Pages
873-885
ISSN
  • 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-0241
OpenAlex
W2132113464
Cited by
845
References
3
FWCI
21.19
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: Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x
The paper
Rex, D. K., Petrini, J. L., Baron, T. H., Chak, A., Cohen, J., Deal, S. E., Hoffman, B., Jacobson, B. C., Mergener, K., Petersen, B. T., Safdi, M. A., Faigel, D. O., & Pike, I. M. (2006). Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x

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.