Trial reportScandinavian journal of gastroenterology2015
Dyspepsia in the community: value of a community-based mailed survey to identify potential participants for a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the usefulness of a community-based mailed survey to identify participants with functional dyspepsia (FD) for a clinical trial. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn 2008, a valid self-report questionnaire of gastrointestinal symptoms required for diagnosis of FD was mailed to randomly selected cohorts of Olmsted County, Minnesota, residents. From survey responses (54%), FD cases and controls were identified. Phone calls were completed in 2010 and 2011 to 54% of respondents offering participation to those meeting criteria.
resultsOf 937 people identified from the survey, 189 cases and 265 controls were contacted by phone using four questions similar to the written survey resulting in a moderate level of agreement (Kappa 0.43, 95% CI: 0.35- 0.51; p = 0.11). The proportion reporting FD symptoms by survey was 42%, while the proportion by phone was 38%. Comparing classification of cases and controls, 118 (62%) survey cases had dyspepsia symptoms on phone screening while 53 (20%) of the survey controls reported FD symptoms. Of 171 who had symptoms, 60 (35%) declined, 33 (19%) were over study age limit, 24 (14%) had inadequate symptom levels and 36 (21%) had comorbidities. Of survey respondents contacted, six (3%) people were enrolled with two screen fails resulting in four (1%) randomized.
conclusionAgreement between survey and phone questions was modest. Classifications between case and control changed. People eligible and willing to participate were a fraction of people reporting symptoms. People participating in clinical trials do not broadly represent those in the population.
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.