Symptom criteria do not distinguish between functional and organic dyspepsia

Per Lundquist, Rein Seensalu, Bengt Lindén, Lars H. Nilsson, Greger Lindberg
{"title":"Symptom criteria do not distinguish between functional and organic dyspepsia","authors":"Per Lundquist,&nbsp;Rein Seensalu,&nbsp;Bengt Lindén,&nbsp;Lars H. Nilsson,&nbsp;Greger Lindberg","doi":"10.1080/110241598750004373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design:</h3>\n \n <p>Retrospective study.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting:</h3>\n \n <p>Teaching hospital, Sweden.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective:</h3>\n \n <p>To find out if various diagnostic criteria could distinguish organic from non-organic causes of dyspepsia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Subjects:</h3>\n \n <p>635 patients previously interviewed by computer questionnaire.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Interventions:</h3>\n \n <p>Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, laboratory tests, clinical examination.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main outcome measure:</h3>\n \n <p>Differentiation between organic and functional dyspepsia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results:</h3>\n \n <p>106 patients had functional dyspepsia. Of these 83 had ulcer-like dyspepsia, 76 motility-like dyspepsia, and 50 reflux-like dyspepsia. Eight patients had unspecified dyspepsia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions:</h3>\n \n <p>There was a considerable overlap between different subgroups, and the criteria did not differentiate between organic and non-organic causes of dyspepsia though the symptom criteria in most cases showed an independent value in discriminating between different subgroups. The clinical usefulness of the criteria remains to be shown. Copyright © 1998 Taylor and Francis Ltd.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100508,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Surgery","volume":"164 5","pages":"345-352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/110241598750004373","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/110241598750004373","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Design:

Retrospective study.

Setting:

Teaching hospital, Sweden.

Objective:

To find out if various diagnostic criteria could distinguish organic from non-organic causes of dyspepsia.

Subjects:

635 patients previously interviewed by computer questionnaire.

Interventions:

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, laboratory tests, clinical examination.

Main outcome measure:

Differentiation between organic and functional dyspepsia.

Results:

106 patients had functional dyspepsia. Of these 83 had ulcer-like dyspepsia, 76 motility-like dyspepsia, and 50 reflux-like dyspepsia. Eight patients had unspecified dyspepsia.

Conclusions:

There was a considerable overlap between different subgroups, and the criteria did not differentiate between organic and non-organic causes of dyspepsia though the symptom criteria in most cases showed an independent value in discriminating between different subgroups. The clinical usefulness of the criteria remains to be shown. Copyright © 1998 Taylor and Francis Ltd.

症状标准不能区分功能性消化不良和器质性消化不良
设计:回顾性研究。地点:瑞典教学医院。目的:探讨各种诊断标准能否区分消化不良的器质性与非器质性病因。对象:635例既往电脑问卷调查患者。干预措施:上消化道内镜检查、实验室检查、临床检查。主要观察指标:器质性消化不良与功能性消化不良的区分。结果:106例患者出现功能性消化不良。其中83例为溃疡样消化不良,76例为动力样消化不良,50例为反流样消化不良。8例患者有不明原因的消化不良。结论:不同亚组之间存在相当大的重叠,尽管大多数情况下症状标准在区分不同亚组时具有独立的价值,但该标准并不能区分消化不良的器质性原因和非器质性原因。该标准的临床实用性仍有待证实。版权所有©1998 Taylor and Francis Ltd。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信