ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2018
Reassessing the value of gastroscopy for the investigation of dyspepsia.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Green endoscopy: A review of strategies for sustainable practice.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Gastroscopy for dyspepsia: Understanding primary care and gastroenterologist mental models of practice: A cognitive task analysis approach.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Comparison of patient tolerance and acceptability of magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy and flexible endoscopy in the investigation of dyspepsia.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness modelling of use of urea breath test for the management ofBMJ open gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Prevention of overuse: A view on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Upper gastrointestinal tract capsule endoscopy using a nurse-led protocol: First reported experience.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.Frontline gastroenterology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic yield of investigating dyspepsia with oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) with or without mucosal biopsy.
designRetrospective service evaluation study.
settingTwo teaching hospitals: The Royal Hallamshire Hospital and Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK. PATIENTS: 500 patients, 55 years of age and over, who underwent OGD to investigate dyspepsia were included. The study period included a 3-month window. All OGDs were performed on an outpatient basis.
interventionsData were extracted from electronic OGD records within the study period.
main outcome measuresDiagnostic yield provided by endoscopic examination and histological assessment.
results378 patients (75.6%) were reported to have some form of endoscopic abnormality, and 417 patients (83.4%) had biopsies taken. The most common findings at OGD were gastritis (47.2%) and oesophagitis (24.4%). Oesophagogastric malignancy was seen in 1%. Diagnoses made endoscopically or histologically that would not have been appropriately managed by empirical therapies were seen in 16.2%.
conclusionOGD in dyspepsia influences patient management in approximately one-sixth of cases. However, the majority of patients are sufficiently managed with
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.