AIM: To determine the global prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia according to Rome criteria.
METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify population-based studies reporting prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia in adults (≥18 years old) according to Rome I, II, III or IV criteria. Prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia was extracted, according to criteria used to define it. Pooled prevalence, according to study location and certain other characteristics, odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: Of 2133 citations evaluated, 67 studies fulfilled eligibility criteria, representing 98 separate populations, comprising 338 383 subjects. Pooled prevalence ranged from 17.6% (95% CI 9.8%-27.1%) in studies defining uninvestigated dyspepsia according to Rome I criteria, to 6.9% (95% CI 5.7%-8.2%) in those using Rome IV criteria. Postprandial distress syndrome was the commonest subtype, occurring in 46.2% of participants using Rome III criteria, and 62.8% with Rome IV. Prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia was up to 1.5-fold higher in women, irrespective of the definition used. There was significant heterogeneity between studies in all our analyses, which persisted even when the same criteria were applied and similar methodology was used.
CONCLUSIONS: Even when uniform symptom-based criteria are used to define the presence of uninvestigated dyspepsia, prevalence varies between countries. This suggests that there are environmental, cultural, ethnic, dietary or genetic influences determining symptoms.
AIM: To perform a systematic review with network meta-analysis to resolve this uncertainty.
METHODS: We searched the medical literature through July 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing efficacy of drugs for adults with FD, compared with each other, or placebo. Trials reported a dichotomous assessment of symptom status after completion of therapy. We pooled data using a random effects model. Efficacy was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to summarise efficacy of each comparison tested. Relative ranking was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probabilities.
RESULTS: We identified 71 eligible RCTs (19 243 participants). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were ranked second for efficacy (RR of remaining symptomatic = 0.71; 95% CI 0.58-0.87, SUCRA 0.87), and first when only low risk of bias trials were included. Most RCTs that used TCAs recruited patients who were refractory to other drugs included in the network. Although sulpiride or levosulpiride were ranked first for efficacy (RR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.36-0.69, SUCRA 0.99), trial quality was low and only 86 patients received active therapy. TCAs were more likely to cause adverse events than placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: TCAs, histamine-2 receptor antagonists, standard- and low-dose proton pump inhibitors, sulpiride or levosulpiride, itopride and acotiamide were all more efficacious than placebo for FD.
AIMS: To evaluate clinical and psychological differences between adults with IBS seen in secondary care in the United Kingdom (UK) and Malaysia.
METHODS: Age- and sex-matched patients with IBS from a single centre in the UK (Leeds) and two centres in Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur and Kota Bharu), who fulfilled Rome III criteria, were recruited prospectively. Demographic characteristics and gastrointestinal and psychological symptoms were compared between both groups.
RESULTS: A total of 266 (133 UK and 133 Malaysian) age- and sex-matched patients with Rome III IBS were recruited (mean age: 45.1 years Malaysia, vs. 46.5 years UK; 57.9% female). UK patients were more likely to consume alcohol than Malaysian patients (54.1% vs. 10.5%, p
METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to July 2021 for meta-analyses of cohort studies and/or randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Summary effect sizes from a random-effects model, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction interval, small-study effect, excess significance and credibility ceilings were devised to classify the credibility of evidence from meta-analyses of cohort studies, whereas the GRADE approach was used for meta-analyses of RCTs.
RESULTS: In meta-analyses of cohort studies, 52 of the 91 examined associations were statistically significant (P ≤ .05). Convincing evidence emerged from main analysis for the association between PPI use and risk of all-site fracture and chronic kidney disease in the elderly population. However, none of these associations remained supported by convincing evidence after sensitivity analyses. The use of PPI is also associated with an increased risk of mortality due to COVID-19 infection and other related adverse outcomes, but the quality of evidence was weak. In meta-analyses of RCTs, 38 of the 63 examined associations were statistically significant. However, no associations were supported by high or moderate-quality evidence.
CONCLUSION: This study's findings imply that most putative adverse outcomes associated with PPI use may not be supported by high-quality evidence and are likely to have been affected by underlying confounding factors. Future research is needed to confirm the causal association between PPI use and risk of fracture and chronic kidney disease.