Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “DYSPEPSIA”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Current concepts in dyspepsia: a world perspective.

The meaning and definition of dyspepsia continues to challenge clinical investigators and has led to the setting up of several international working teams. However, confusion continues to reign around this term. The effort to classify patients with dyspepsia into subgroups according to their most predominant symptoms has failed to provide clues to the underlying disease, or even to discriminate between functional and organic dyspepsia. With these limitations in mind, the question arises: is there any reason for putting further effort into developing a world-wide definition of dyspepsia when, in addition to the aforementioned shortcomings, further variables such as geographical region, ethnic background, culture and sanitary resources come into play? The answer is that only by establishing a reproducible methodology for individual symptom assessment using a well-defined protocol will comparisons of the prevalence of dyspepsia and the impact of different therapeutic interventions become possible around the world. The data on dyspepsia prevalence, nearly all arising from studies in a few developed geographical areas and countries, are of the order of 1-4% of all consultations in all primary care medicine. However, estimates of adults affected by dyspepsia are as high as 20-40%. The magnitude of these statistics underlines the necessity for further work on the concept of dyspepsia and its major functional subgroups, following the exclusion of any organic causes. Issues such as 'investigate dyspepsia before starting with any kind of treatment or treat dyspepsia before further investigation' or the debate about whether to 'eradicate or ignore Helicobacter pylori in functional dyspepsia' will remain unresolved unless studies performed throughout the world use widely comparable and acceptable definitions and criteria for these conditions. Since the first international working party report in 1988, definitions of dyspepsia have included the description of 'upper abdominal pain or discomfort' and, more recently, have specified 'pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen' in order to emphasise further the site of origin as the upper alimentary tract (stomach-duodenum). However, a major change was evident in the more recent Rome I and Rome II reports, in which the symptoms heartburn, acid regurgitation, and belching were excluded from the definition of dyspepsia because of their relation to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and aerophagia. The intention to define a set of symptoms for dyspepsia is good, but we continue to be faced with overlaps. How should the patient with epigastric pain and heartburn after endoscopic exclusion of duodenal ulcer and reflux esophagitis be classified: dyspepsia or GERD? In cases of abnormal gastroesophageal reflux, 24-h pH monitoring could help to resolve this dilemma, but what if this investigation turns out to be normal? In this field, we need to perform careful studies. In addition, we need to consider the lifestyle and cultural habits of people around the world when translating upper gastrointestinal symptoms into dyspepsia. A step forward in the definition of dyspepsia was attempted by the recent working party for the Rome II consensus on functional gastrointestinal disorders (N. Talley et al.). In this project, the symptoms of dyspepsia were individually described not by a single term, but by painting a 'word picture', to make it easier for patients to express their symptoms, and give doctors and clinical investigators a better understanding of the 'dyspeptic problem' of each individual. It is advisable to follow this approach, since a clear picture of a patient's symptoms, including their duration and intensity, in association with the modern technical approaches that allow investigation beyond organic causes of dyspepsia, will lead to progress in our understanding and better communication about this problem within the medical community, and ultimately to better treatment.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Non-ulcer dyspepsia: myths and realities.

Dyspepsia can be defined as the presence of upper abdominal pain or discomfort; other symptoms referable to the proximal gastrointestinal tract, such as nausea, early satiety, and bloating, may also be present. Symptoms may or may not be meal related. To be termed chronic, dyspepsia should have been present for three months or longer. Over half the patients who present with chronic dyspepsia have no evidence of peptic ulceration, other focal lesions, or systemic disease and are diagnosed as having non-ulcer (or functional) dyspepsia. Non-ulcer dyspepsia is a heterogeneous syndrome. It has been proposed that this entity can be subdivided into a number of symptomatic clusters or groupings that suggest possible underlying pathogenetic mechanisms. These groupings include ulcer-like dyspepsia (typical symptoms of peptic ulcer are present), dysmotility (stasis)-like dyspepsia (symptoms include nausea, early satiety, bloating, and belching that suggest gastric stasis or small intestinal dysmotility), and reflux-like dyspepsia (heartburn or acid regurgitation accompanies upper abdominal pain or discomfort). The aetiology of non-ulcer dyspepsia is not established, although it is likely a multifactorial disorder. Motility abnormalities may be important in a subset of dyspepsia patients but probably do not explain the symptoms in the majority. Epidemiological studies have not convincingly demonstrated an association between Helicobacter pylori and non-ulcer dyspepsia. Other potential aetiological mechanisms, such as increased gastric acid secretion, psychological factors, life-event stress, and dietary factors, have not been established as causes of non-ulcer dyspepsia. Management of non-ulcer dyspepsia is difficult because its pathogenesis is poorly understood and is confounded because of a high placebo response rate. Until more data are available, it seems reasonable that treatment regimens target the clinical groupings described above. Antacids are no more effective than placebo in non-ulcer dyspepsia, although a subgroup of non-ulcer dyspepsia patients with reflux-like or ulcer-like symptoms may respond to H2-receptor antagonists. However, there is no significant benefit of these agents over placebo in many cases. Bismuth has been shown to be superior to placebo in patients with H. pylori in a number of studies, but these trials had several shortcomings and others have reported conflicting findings. Sucralfate was demonstrated in one study to be superior to placebo, but this finding was not confirmed by another group of investigators. Prokinetic drugs appear to be efficacious, and may be most useful in patients with dysmotility-like and reflux-like dyspepsia.

Dyspepsia↗
PubMed2006

[Prevalence of dyspepsia and associated sociodemographic factors].

OBJECTIVE: To assess prevalence of dyspepsia and distribution of dyspepsia and frequent dyspepsia in subgroups of adults (20 years and older) according to their demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional population-based study was carried out comprising 3,934 subjects living in Pelotas, Southern Brazil, from October 1999 to January 2000. Data was collected through household interviews. Dyspepsia was defined as epigastric pain or discomfort associated or not with nausea in the previous year, according to Rome I and Rome II criteria. Frequent dyspepsia was defined as more than six dyspepsia episodes in the previous year and/or nausea, at least once a month. These outcomes were analyzed according to age, gender, skin color, educational level, per capita income and marital status. Data analysis was carried out through Pearson Chi-square test for categorical variables and linear trend test, when applicable. RESULTS: The prevalence of dyspepsia was 44.4% and frequent dyspepsia, 27.4%. The prevalences of reflux-like, ulcer-like, dysmotility-like and unspecific dyspepsia subtypes were 19.4%, 6.3%, 13.9%, and 16.6%, respectively. The prevalences of these subtypes of frequent dyspepsia were 14.7%, 4.9%, 11.2% and 6.8%, respectively. Prevalences among women were 50% higher. Low-income young people seemed to be more affected by dyspeptic symptoms. The analysis according to Rome II criteria showed prevalences of 15.9% and 7.5% for dyspepsia and frequent dyspepsia, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dyspepsia and frequent dyspepsia were prevalent problems in the studied population. Most people could be classified in more than one subgroup of dyspepsia.

Adult↗
PubMed1986

Association of anxiety, neuroticism, and depression with dyspepsia of unknown cause. A case-control study.

Non-ulcer dyspepsia, also termed "nervous dyspepsia," is a heterogeneous syndrome: ulcerlike symptoms can occur with the irritable bowel syndrome, gastroesophageal reflux, and other disorders. In addition, there is a significant subgroup of non-ulcer dyspepsia sufferers who have no disorder associated with, and no known cause for, their dyspepsia, and the dyspepsia in this subgroup is given the provisional name of "essential dyspepsia." The aim of this study was to assess if psychological factors are associated with patients who present with essential dyspepsia. Psychometric testing was carried out on 76 essential dyspepsia patients (including 18 patients with gastroduodenitis), 76 randomly selected dyspepsia-free community controls (matched for age, sex, and social class), and 66 duodenal ulcer controls. Essential dyspepsia patients were retested a mean of 3.6 mo later. Using stepwise regression analysis, the initial scores of essential dyspepsia and duodenal ulcer subjects showed them to be more neurotic, anxious, and depressed than community controls; these abnormalities persisted in essential dyspepsia patients on retesting and were not affected by the symptom status. It is concluded that essential dyspepsia patients who present for investigation with symptoms are more likely to be persistently neurotic, anxious, and depressed than dyspepsia-free controls, and this is unrelated to the presence of symptoms, but the association may not be of major clinical significance, as the numerical differences observed between groups were small and the correlation coefficients were low.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

The optimal age threshold for screening upper endoscopy for uninvestigated dyspepsia in Taiwan, an area with a higher prevalence of gastric cancer in young adults.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that 1% to 2% of patients with dyspepsia are associated with gastric cancer. To avoid missing gastric cancer, most guidelines recommend that patients over 45 years old should undergo EGD for uninvestigated dyspepsia. In Taiwan, however, the prevalence of gastric cancer in younger patients is higher than that of Western countries. The optimal age threshold for endoscopy in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia in Taiwan remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to determine an optimal age threshold for screening endoscopy in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia to avoid missing gastric cancer in Taiwan. METHODS: We reviewed the findings in all adult patients who underwent upper endoscopy because of uninvestigated dyspepsia at the National Taiwan University Hospital. In those patients with confirmed gastric cancer histology, further analysis was performed. Cumulative age frequency distributions for gastric cancer were calculated according to gender and to the presence or the absence of alarm features. The stages of gastric cancer also were analyzed according to the presence or the absence of alarm symptoms. RESULTS: During the 5-year period, a total of 17,894 patients received upper endoscopy caused by uninvestigated dyspepsia. Gastric cancer was found in 225 (12.6 cases per 1000 EGDs) patients who presented with uninvestigated dyspepsia, 135 men and 90 women. Thirty-one (13.7%) and 17 (7.6%) patients were aged less than 45 and 40 years old, respectively. Among these 225 patients with gastric cancer, 114 (50.7%) patients did not have alarm symptoms (simple dyspepsia), whereas 111 (49.3%) had alarm symptoms. About 5.3% (12/225) of gastric cancer cases would have been missed if endoscopy had been omitted in patients without alarm symptoms and aged less than 45 years. The cumulative age relative frequencies of patients with gastric cancer who presented with simple dyspepsia were 1.8 (12/6720), 1.02 (5/4920), and 0.59 (2/3411) cases per 1000 EGDs for uninvestigated dyspepsia in patients aged less than 45, 40, and 35 years, respectively. When the frequencies of gastric cancer were stratified by age and gender, we found a trend of male predominance in older patients but not in younger patients. The cutoff age was 60 years old ( p < 0.05). Early gastric cancer was detected in 9.9% (11/111) and 26.3% (30/114) of patients with and without alarm symptoms, respectively (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Gastric cancer is not uncommon in patients with dyspepsia aged less than 45 years in Taiwan. The age threshold of screening endoscopy for uninvestigated dyspepsia should be the same for both genders in view of comparable frequencies of gastric cancer in a young age population. Because more than 5% of gastric cancer cases would be missed in Taiwan if endoscopy was omitted in simple dyspeptic patients who were aged less than 45 years, we recommend that 40 years old might be an optimal age threshold for screening endoscopy for uninvestigated dyspepsia in Taiwan, in both men and women patients.

Adult↗