Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 425

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dyspepsia in England and Scotland.

Open access
Jones, R H, Lydeard, S E, Hobbs, F D, Kenkre, J E, Williams, E I, Jones, S J, Repper, J A, Caldow, J L, Dunwoodie, W M, Bottomley, J M·1990·Gut

Abstract

A validated postal questionnaire has been used to establish the prevalence of dyspeptic symptoms in five geographical locations from the south coast of England to the north of Scotland. The six month period prevalence of dyspepsia in the 7428 respondents to the questionnaire is 41% and equal between the sexes, with similar prevalence rates in the centres studied. There is considerable overlap between upper abdominal symptoms and symptoms of heartburn; 56% of patients with dyspepsia experience both groups of symptoms. Symptom frequency falls progressively with age in men and women, but the proportion of people seeking medical advice for dyspepsia rises with age. One quarter of the dyspeptic patients studied have consulted a general practitioner about their symptoms. This study suggests that the prevalence of dyspepsia in the community has changed little over the last 30 years, despite evidence that the frequency of peptic ulcer disease is falling. Symptom prevalence is unrelated to social class, but this factor is associated with consultation behaviour, the consultation rate rising from 17% in social class 1 to 29% in social class 4. The use of investigations--barium meal and endoscopy--is similarly related to social class; the lowest rate for ulcer diagnosis (4.7%) is found in social class 1 and the highest (17.1%) in social class 5.

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 · 10.1136/gut.31.4.401

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Jones, R. H., Lydeard, S. E., Hobbs, F. D., Kenkre, J. E., Williams, E. I., Jones, S. J., Repper, J. A., Caldow, J. L., Dunwoodie, W. M., & Bottomley, J. M.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1990-04
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
401-405
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2103706471
Cited by
425
References
0
FWCI
10.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.