Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2001
Randomised controlled trial of Helicobacter pylori testing and endoscopy for dyspepsia in primary care.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Guideline
- Effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia: systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review of the effect of primary care-based service innovations on quality and patterns of referral to specialist secondary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Pooled it
- Comparison between empirical prokinetics, Helicobacter test-and-treat and empirical endoscopy in primary-care patients presenting with dyspepsia: a one-year study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2006Trial
- Trial
- Performance of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for dyspepsia in Saudi population: prospective observational study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2015Observational
- Functional dyspepsia symptom resolution after Helicobacter pylori eradication with two different regimens.Przeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2014Article
- Economic Evidence and Point-of-Care Testing.The Clinical biochemist. Reviews · 2013Review
- Helicobacter Pylori "Test-and-Treat" Strategy for Management of Dyspepsia: A Comprehensive Review.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2013Article
- Clinical practice: diagnosis and evaluation of dyspepsia.Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2010Review
- Managing dyspepsia.Current gastroenterology reports · 2009Review
- Review
- Dyspepsia results may not apply in primary care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
- H. Pylori testing and endoscopy for dyspepsia in primary care. Improved diagnostic accuracy is important in dyspepsia.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the cost effectiveness of a strategy of near patient Helicobacter pylori testing and endoscopy for managing dyspepsia.
designRandomised controlled trial.
setting31 UK primary care centres.
participants478 patients under 50 years old presenting with dyspepsia of longer than four weeks duration.
interventionsNear patient testing for H pylori and open access endoscopy for patients with positive results. Control patients received acid suppressing drugs or specialist referral at general practitioner's discretion.
main outcome measuresCost effectiveness based on improvement in symptoms and use of resources at 12 months; quality of life.
results40% of the study group tested positive for H pylori. 45% of study patients had endoscopy compared with 25% of controls. More peptic ulcers were diagnosed in the study group (7.4% v 2.1%, P=0.011). Paired comparison of symptom scores and quality of life showed that all patients improved over time with no difference between study and control groups. No significant differences were observed in rates of prescribing, consultation, or referral. Costs were higher in the study group ( 367.85 pound sterling v 253.16 pound sterling per patient).
conclusionsThe test and endoscopy strategy increases endoscopy rates over usual practice in primary care. The additional cost is not offset by benefits in symptom relief or quality of life.
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.