Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

What is the prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in subjects with dyspepsia? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Evolving definitions of dyspepsia may lead to differences in the prevalence of clinically significant findings encountered at upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in sufferers. However, few studies report the prevalence of endoscopic findings in individuals with dyspepsia. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis examining this.

METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through April 2010 to identify relevant articles (23,457 citations). Eligible studies recruited adults from the community, workplace, blood donation or screening clinics, family physician offices, or internal medicine clinics. Studies were required to report prevalence of dyspepsia and perform upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a proportion of, or all, participants. Prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in subjects with and without dyspepsia was pooled for all studies, and compared using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS: Of 240 papers evaluated, 151 reported prevalence of dyspepsia. Nine reported prevalence of endoscopic findings among 5389 participants. Erosive esophagitis was the most common abnormality encountered (pooled prevalence 13.4%) followed by peptic ulcer (pooled prevalence 8.0%). The only finding encountered more frequently in individuals with dyspepsia, compared with those without, was peptic ulcer (odds ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.82). Prevalence of erosive esophagitis was lower when the Rome criteria were used to define dyspepsia compared with a broad definition (6% vs 20%).

CONCLUSIONS: Erosive esophagitis was the most common finding encountered at endoscopy for dyspepsia, though prevalence was lower when the Rome criteria were used to define dyspepsia. Only peptic ulcer was more common in individuals with dyspepsia.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app