ArticleInternational journal of health geographics2012
Could gastrointestinal disorders differ in two close but divergent social environments?
Article in International journal of health geographics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tools Used to Measure the Physical State of Women with Celiac Disease: A Review with a Systematic Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Review
- Cohort Profile: The Christchurch IBS cOhort to investigate Mechanisms FOr gut Relief and improved Transit (COMFORT).Inflammatory intestinal diseases · 2020Article
- Gastrointestinal symptoms - an illness burden that affects daily work in patients with IBS.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2019Article
- More negative self-esteem and inferior coping strategies among patients diagnosed with IBS compared with patients without IBS--a case-control study in primary care.BMC family practice · 2015Article
- The epidemiology of irritable bowel syndrome.Clinical epidemiology · 2014Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany public health problems in modern society affect the gastrointestinal area. Knowledge of the disease occurrence in populations is better understood if viewed in a psychosocial context including indicators of the social environment where people spend their lives. The general aim of this study was to estimate the occurrence in the population and between sexes of common gastrointestinal conditions in two neighborhood cities representing two different social environments defined as a "white-collar" and a "blue-collar" city.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective register study using data of diagnosed gastrointestinal disorders (cumulative incidence rates) derived from an administrative health care register based on medical records assigned by the physicians at hospitals and primary care.
resultsFunctional gastrointestinal diseases and peptic ulcers were more frequent in the white-collar city, while diagnoses in the gallbladder area were significantly more frequent in the blue-collar city. Functional dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, and unspecified functional bowel diseases, and celiac disease, were more frequent among women while esophageal reflux, peptic ulcers, gastric and rectal cancers were more frequent among men regardless of social environment.
conclusionsKnowledge of the occurrence of gastrointestinal problems in populations is better understood if viewed in a context were the social environment is included. Indicators of the social environment should therefore also be considered in future studies of the occurrence of gastrointestinal problems.
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.