ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2011
Structured management strategy versus usual care for gastroesophageal reflux disease: rationale for pooled analysis of five European cluster-randomized trials.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structured management strategy based on the Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) Questionnaire (GerdQ) vs. usual primary care for GERD: pooled analysis of five cluster-randomised European studies.International journal of clinical practice · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has a major impact at the primary care level and there is a need to evaluate whether the diagnosis and therapeutic management of GERD in Europe needs to be improved.
methodsThis project was designed to test the hypothesis that a new primary care management strategy would improve outcomes for patients with GERD, compared with usual care, in Europe. The analysis pools five separate cluster-randomized studies conducted in Austria, Italy, Norway, Spain and Sweden. These studies used a strategy based on the self-administered GerdQ questionnaire to stratify adult patients with symptoms of heartburn or regurgitation according to the frequency and impact of symptoms. A score of ≥8 indicates a high probability of suffering GERD. Patients with a GerdQ impact score ≤2 were treated with generic proton-pump inhibitors according to local guidance, and patients with an impact score ≥3 were treated with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily.
resultsIn total, 2400 patients were enrolled across the five studies. The protocols were modified by individual countries according to their local guidelines/requirements. In Norway, the new management strategy was compared with traditional routine endoscopy and 24-hour pH-metry, and encompassed proton-pump inhibitor reimbursement restrictions. Outcome measures differed by country, but included control of GERD symptoms, self-rated health status and work productivity, treatment changes, specialist referrals and physician adherence. GERD-related use of healthcare resources was also evaluated.
conclusionThe pooled analysis will determine whether a locally adapted primary care management strategy for GERD, using GerdQ as a patient-tailored diagnostic and therapeutic evaluation tool, is beneficial compared with usual care across five countries with different standard approaches to GERD management and control.
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.