0
The Rational Clinical Examination | Clinician's Corner

Can the Clinical History Distinguish Between Organic and Functional Dyspepsia?

Paul Moayyedi, MD; Nicholas J. Talley, MD, PhD; M. Brian Fennerty, MD; Nimish Vakil, MD
JAMA. 2006;295(13):1566-1576. doi:10.1001/jama.295.13.1566.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context  Upper gastrointestinal symptoms occur in 40% of the population. An accurate diagnosis would help rationalize investigation and treatment.

Objective  To systematically review the literature of the accuracy of primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, or computer models in diagnosing organic dyspepsia.

Data Sources  A search of Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (December 2003), MEDLINE (1966-December 2003), EMBASE (1988-December 2003), and CINAHL (1982-December 2003) for studies that reported on cohorts of patients attending for endoscopy that had symptoms, clinical opinion, or both recorded before investigation.

Study Selection  Studies that prospectively compared the diagnosis reached by a clinician, computer model, or both with results of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in adult patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms.

Data Extraction  Two authors independently assessed studies (n = 79) for eligibility and abstracted data for estimating likelihood ratios (LRs) of clinical opinion, computer models, or both in diagnosing an organic cause for dyspepsia.

Data Synthesis  Fifteen studies were identified that evaluated 11 366 patients, with 4817 patients (42%) classified as having organic dyspepsia. The computer models performed similarly to the clinician; therefore, the 2 approaches were combined. The diagnosis reached by the clinician or computer model suggesting organic dyspepsia had an LR of 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-1.8), and a negative result decreased the likelihood of organic dyspepsia (LR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.38-0.55). A diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease performed similarly with an LR of 2.2 (95% CI, 1.9-2.6), but an evaluation that suggested the absence of peptic ulcer disease had an LR of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.38-0.53). A clinical history suggesting esophagitis had an LR of 2.4 (95% CI, 1.9-3.0) vs a negative history that had an LR of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.42-0.60).

Conclusion  Neither clinical impression nor computer models that incorporated patient demographics, risk factors, history items, and symptoms adequately distinguished between organic and functional disease in patients referred for endoscopic evaluation of dyspepsia.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

Figures

Figure 1. Flow Diagram of the Studies Identified in the Systematic Review
Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2. Positive and Negative Likelihood Ratios of Different Approaches to Diagnosing an Organic Cause of Dyspepsia
Grahic Jump Location

CI indicates confidence interval; DDSG, Danish Dyspepsia Study Group. Each square represents an individual study. The size of the square is a measure of the size of the study and the horizontal line through the square indicates a graphical representation of the 95% CI of that study. For the combined analysis, the diamond and vertical dashed line indicate the pooled positive or negative likelihood ratio, with the left and right ends of the diamond indicating the pooled 95% CI.

Figure 3. Positive and Negative Likelihood Ratios of Different Approaches to Diagnosing Peptic Ulcer Disease
Grahic Jump Location

CI indicates confidence interval; DDSG, Danish Dyspepsia Study Group. Each square represents an individual study. The size of the square is a measure of the size of the study and the horizontal line through the square indicates a graphical representation of the 95% CI of that study. For the combined analysis, the diamond and vertical dashed line indicate the pooled positive or negative likelihood ratio, with the left and right ends of the diamond indicating the pooled 95% CI.

Figure 4. Positive and Negative Likelihood Ratios of Different Approaches to Diagnosing Esophagitis
Grahic Jump Location

CI indicates confidence interval; DDSG, Danish Dyspepsia Study Group. Each square represents an individual study. The size of the square is a measure of the size of the study and the horizontal line through the square indicates a graphical representation of the 95% CI of that study. For the combined analysis, the diamond and vertical dashed line indicate the pooled positive or negative likelihood ratio, with the left and right ends of the diamond indicating the pooled 95% CI.

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

References

CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Response

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 30

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
Jobs