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.
AIMS: The aim of this consensus is to provide evidence-based statements to guide clinicians caring for patients with refractory reflux-like symptoms (rRLS) or refractory GERD.
METHODS: This consensus was developed by the International Working Group for the Classification of Oesophagitis. The steering committee developed specific PICO questions pertaining to the management of PPI rRLS. Methodologists conducted systematic reviews of the literature. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 13 of 17 statements on diagnosis and management. For rRLS, suggested diagnostic strategies included endoscopy, ambulatory reflux testing and oesophageal manometry. The group did not reach consensus on the role of oesophageal biopsies or the use of reflux-symptom association in patients undergoing reflux testing. The group suggested against increasing the PPI dose in patients who had received 8 weeks of a twice-daily PPI. Adjunctive alginate or antacid therapy was suggested. There was no consensus on the role of adjunctive prokinetics. There was little role for adjunctive transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) inhibitors or bile acid sequestrants. Endoscopic or surgical anti-reflux procedures should not be performed in patients with rRLS in the absence of objectively confirmed GERD.
CONCLUSIONS: The management of rRLS should be personalised, based on shared decision-making regarding the role of diagnostic testing to confirm or rule out GERD as a basis for treatment optimisation. Anti-reflux procedures should not be performed without objective confirmation of GERD.