The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy of the diagnosis of GORD by questionnaire, physicians and a trial of proton pump inhibitor treatment: the Diamond Study
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) by the Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ), family practitioners, gastroenterologists and a test of esomeprazole therapy. Methods: This was a single-blind, single-arm study over 3–4 weeks from September 2005 to November 2006. Each symptom-based diagnostic assessment was made blinded to prior diagnoses. Patients were those presenting to their family practitioner with troublesome upper gastrointestinal symptoms (n=308). The RDQ was completed and a symptom-based diagnosis was made by the family practitioner. Placebo esomeprazole was started. Gastroenterologists made a symptom-based diagnosis and then performed endoscopy with 48 h oesophageal pH and symptom association monitoring to determine the presence/absence of GORD. Symptoms were recorded during treatment with 40 mg of esomeprazole for 2 weeks. The main outcome measure was RDQ scoring for the presence of GORD compared with symptom-based diagnosis by family physicians and gastroenterologists. Results: GORD was present in 203/308 (66%) patients. Only 49% of the patients with GORD selected either heartburn or regurgitation as the most troublesome symptom. Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, of the symptom-based diagnosis of GORD, were 62% and 67% for the RDQ, 63% and 63% for family practitioners, and 67% and 70% for gastroenterologists. Symptom response to esomeprazole was neither sensitive nor specific for the diagnosis of GORD. Conclusions: The RDQ, family practitioners and gastroenterologists have moderate and similar accuracy for diagnosis of GORD. Symptom response to a 2 week course of 40 mg of esomeprazole does not add diagnostic precision. Clinical trial number: NCT00291746.
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
Cites
1 retracted
Medical treatments in the short term management of reflux oesophagitis
Moayyedi, P., Santana, J., Khan, M., Preston, C., & Donnellan, C. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003244.pub3 · Cited by 239
RetractedVakil, N., van Zanten, S. V., Kahrilas, P., Dent, J., Jones, R., & the Global Consensus Group (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x · Cited by 3,924
Self-citationFunctional 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
Lundell, L. R., Dent, J., Bennett, J. R., Blum, A. L., Armstrong, D., Galmiche, J. P., Johnson, F., Hongo, M., Richter, J. E., Spechler, S. J., et al. (1999) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.45.2.172 · Cited by 2,305
Self-citationEpidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review
Dent, J. (2005) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2004.051821 · Cited by 1,887
Self-citationSvedlund, J., Sj�din, I., & Dotevall, G. (1988) · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01535722 · Cited by 1,468
JONES, R., JUNGHARD, O., DENT, J., VAKIL, N., HALLING, K., WERNERSSON, B., & LIND, T. (2009) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04142.x · Cited by 721
Self-citationThe Burden of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, 2006
Shaheen, N. J., Hansen, R. A., Morgan, D. R., Gangarosa, L. M., Ringel, Y., Thiny, M. T., Russo, M. W., & Sandler, R. S. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00723.x · Cited by 691
Ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring using a wireless system
Pandolfino, J. (2003) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9270(03)00062-5 · Cited by 528
Kahrilas, P. J., Shaheen, N. J., & Vaezi, M. F. (2008) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.044 · Cited by 431
Cited by
Modern diagnosis of GERD: the Lyon Consensus
Gyawali, C. P., Kahrilas, P. J., Savarino, E., Zerbib, F., Mion, F., Smout, A. J. P. M., Vaezi, M., Sifrim, D., Fox, M. R., Vela, M. F., et al. (2018) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722 · Cited by 1,457
Dellon, E. S., Liacouras, C. A., Molina-Infante, J., Furuta, G. T., Spergel, J. M., Zevit, N., Spechler, S. J., Attwood, S. E., Straumann, A., Aceves, S. S., et al. (2018) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.009 · Cited by 1,162
Gastroesophageal reflux disease–from reflux episodes to mucosal inflammation
Kandulski, A., & Malfertheiner, P. (2012) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2011.210 · Cited by 76
Fikree, A., Aziz, Q., & Sifrim, D. (2017) · Neurogastroenterology & Motility · doi:10.1111/nmo.13029 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Dent, J., Vakil, N., Jones, R., Bytzer, P., Schöning, U., Halling, K., Junghard, O., & Lind, T.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2010-05-13
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 714-721
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2136284624
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 19.67
- 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: Accuracy of the diagnosis of GORD by questionnaire, physicians and a trial of proton pump inhibitor treatment: the Diamond Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2009.200063
- The paper
- Dent, J., Vakil, N., Jones, R., Bytzer, P., Schöning, U., Halling, K., Junghard, O., & Lind, T. (2010). Accuracy of the diagnosis of GORD by questionnaire, physicians and a trial of proton pump inhibitor treatment: the Diamond Study. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2009.200063
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.