ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine1998
The one-stop dyspepsia clinic--an alternative to open-access endoscopy for patients with dyspepsia.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- General practitioner referrals to one-stop clinics for symptoms that could be indicative of cancer: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.Family practice · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Prevention of overuse: A view on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Audit of a nurse endoscopist based one stop dyspepsia clinic.Postgraduate medical journal · 2002Article
- The general physician--extinction or evolution?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most sensitive investigative tool for the upper gastrointestinal tract is endoscopy, and many gastroenterologists offer an open-access endoscopy service to general practitioners. However, for patients with dyspepsia, endoscopy is not always the most appropriate initial investigation, and the one-stop dyspepsia clinic allows for different approaches. We have audited, over one year, the management and outcomes of patients attending a one-stop dyspepsia clinic. All patients seen in the clinic were included, and for those not endoscoped the notes were reviewed one year after the end of the study to check for reattendances and diagnoses originally missed. Patients' and general practitioners' views of the service were assessed by questionnaire. 485 patients were seen, of whom 301 (62%) were endoscoped at first attendance. In 66 patients (14%), endoscopy was deemed inappropriate and only one of these returned subsequently for endoscopy. 118 patients (24%) were symptom-free when seen in the clinic and were asked to telephone for an appointment if and when symptoms recurred; half of these returned and were endoscoped. Oesophagitis and duodenal ulcer were significantly more common in this 'telephone endoscopy' group than in those endoscoped straight from the clinic. Overall, 25% of patients referred were not endoscoped. Important additional diagnoses were made from the clinic consultation. General practitioners and patients valued the system, in particular the telephone endoscopy service. 84% of general practitioners said they would prefer the one-stop dyspepsia clinic to open-access endoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.