PubMed · 14045798
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
H HARTMANN. 1963. INDIGESTION.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14045798/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
AIM: To evaluate treatment efficacy using objective quality criteria. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials of endoscopically investigated dyspepsia (1979-2003) using the Jadad score and Rome II guidelines. The Jadad score differentiated studies as 'high quality' (score 4-5/5) vs. 'poor quality' (score 1-3/5). Three key Rome II guidelines on study design (cut-off of 0/3 or > 0/3) were also compared with the Jadad score. RESULTS: Poor quality trials suggested a benefit of prokinetic therapy [relative risk (RR) of remaining dyspeptic, 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39-0.56), which was not confirmed in high quality trials (RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.84-1.19). There was a marked benefit of H2-receptor antagonist therapy in poor quality trials (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.76), but a marginal benefit in good quality trials (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97). Trial quality did not affect the small statistically significant benefit seen with Helicobacter pylori eradication. Two high quality trials suggested a limited benefit with the use of proton pump inhibitors, with no poor quality trials to provide a comparison. Separation of the studies by the Rome II criteria had a similar impact on the calculated treatment estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of benefit of prokinetic and H2-receptor antagonist therapies reported in previous meta-analyses has been over-estimated. The quality of trials has an impact on the efficacy estimates of treatment. The Rome II criteria for study methodology may be appropriate for judging study quality.
BACKGROUND: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is highly prevalent in Western countries. Because the majority of patients do not present with endoscopic abnormalities, the assessment of the symptom severity and quality of life, and their response to treatment, has become increasingly important. Self-assessed symptom questionnaires are now key instruments in clinical trials. AIM: To evaluate the validity of available GERD measurement tools. METHODS: An ideal GERD symptom assessment instrument, suitable as a primary end-point for clinical trials, should possess the following characteristics: (i) be sensitive in patients with GERD; (ii) cover the frequency and intensity of typical and atypical GERD symptoms; (iii) be multidimensional (cover all symptom dimensions); (iv) have proven psychometric properties (validity, reliability and responsiveness); (v) be practical and economical; (vi) be self-assessed; (vii) use 'word pictures' which are easy to understand for patients; (viii) respond rapidly to changes (responsiveness over short time intervals); (ix) be used daily to assess changes during and after therapy; and (x) be valid in different languages for international use. RESULTS: A literature review revealed five scales that met some of the above characteristics, but did not fulfil all criteria. CONCLUSION: There is a need for a new evaluative tool for the assessment of GERD symptoms and their response to therapy.