ArticleBMC gastroenterology2011
Perspectives on gastroesophageal reflux disease in primary care: the REFLEX study of patient-physician agreement.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge and practice of family medicine and internal medicine residents toward the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
- Management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: Patient and physician communication challenges and shared decision making.World journal of clinical cases · 2018Review
- The Economic Impact of Levothyroxine Dose Adjustments: the CONTROL HE Study.Clinical drug investigation · 2017Article
- Comorbidities, Concomitant Medications, and Diet as Factors Affecting Levothyroxine Therapy: Results of the CONTROL Surveillance Project.Drugs in R&D · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians may be unaware of the severity and extent of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in their patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient-physician agreement concerning proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment.
methods1818 French primary-care physicians and 5174 adult patients with GERD who were taking PPIs answered questions regarding symptoms and treatment satisfaction. Patient-physician agreement was scored using the Kappa (κ) method.
resultsThere was moderate patient-physician agreement for PPI treatment satisfaction (κ = 0.60), PPI prescription adherence (κ = 0.57) and use of over-the-counter gastrointestinal medications (κ = 0.44-0.51). Patient satisfaction with PPI therapy and PPI treatment adherence rates were both ~90%. There was poor patient-physician agreement concerning PPI therapy expectations (κ = 0.22-0.33). Residual reflux symptoms occurred in 61% of patients. Physicians underestimated residual symptom severity compared with their patients (κ = 0.43-0.47), though there was good agreement regarding the presence (κ = 0.62-0.78) and frequency (κ = 0.61-0.66) of these symptoms and their effect on patients' daily life (κ = 0.64).
conclusionsPatient-physician agreement regarding PPI therapy for GERD was moderate or good for the presence of residual symptoms and moderate for treatment satisfaction, but poor for treatment expectations. PPI treatment resulted in high satisfaction rates, but residual symptoms were fairly common and their severity was underestimated by physicians.
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.