Methods: The questionnaire was created and developed through a literature review of current gastroparesis works of literature by the scientific committee of Asian Neurogastroenterology and Motility Association.
Results: A total of 490 doctors from across Asia (including Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam) participated in the survey. Gastroparesis is a significant gastrointestinal condition. However, a substantial proportion of respondents was unable to give the correct definition and accurate diagnostic test. The main reason for lack of interest in diagnosing gastroparesis was "the lack of reliable diagnostic tests" (46.8%) or "a lack of effective treatment" (41.5%). Only 41.7% of respondents had access to gastric emptying scintigraphy. Most doctors had never diagnosed gastroparesis at all (25.2%) or diagnosed fewer than 5 patients a year (52.1%).
Conclusions: Gastroparesis can be challenging to diagnose due to the lack of instrument, standardized method, and paucity of research data on normative value, risk factors, and treatment studies in Asian patients. Future strategies should concentrate on how to disseminate the latest knowledge of gastroparesis in Asia. In particular, there is an urgent need to estimate the magnitude of the problems in high risk and idiopathic patients as well as a standardized diagnostic procedure in Asia.
METHODS: The two RFGES survey methods are described in detail, and differences in DGBI findings summarized for household versus Internet surveys globally, and in more detail for China and Turkey. Logistic regression analysis was used to elucidate factors contributing to these differences.
RESULTS: Overall, DGBI were only half as prevalent when assessed with household vs Internet surveys. Similar patterns of methodology-related DGBI differences were seen within both China and Turkey, but prevalence differences between the survey methods were dramatically larger in Turkey. No clear reasons for outcome differences by survey method were identified, although greater relative reduction in bowel and anorectal versus upper gastrointestinal disorders when household versus Internet surveying was used suggests an inhibiting influence of social sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings strongly indicate that besides affecting data quality, manpower needs and data collection time and costs, the choice of survey method is a substantial determinant of symptom reporting and DGBI prevalence outcomes. This has important implications for future DGBI research and epidemiological research more broadly.