SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019
Effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Pooled it
- Anorectal manometry to diagnose dyssynergic defecation: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2021Pooled it
- Comparison of Antiviral Agents for Seasonal Influenza Outcomes in Healthy Adults and Children: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Head of bed elevation to relieve gastroesophageal reflux symptoms: a systematic review.BMC family practice · 2021Pooled it
- What can we learn from network meta-analyses published in top medical journals.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- VTH BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS CONFERENCE ON HELICOBACTER PYLORI INFECTION.Arquivos de gastroenterologia · 2026Article
- Primary Care Physician Characteristics and Low-Value Care Provision in Japan.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Up-Front Endoscopy Maximizes Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Satisfaction in Uninvestigated Dyspepsia.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2023Observational
- Helicobacter pylori infection.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
- Diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations onPrzeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2023Article
- Detection and Treatment ofGastroenterology research and practice · 2022Review
- Diagnosis ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Pancreatic Fibrosis (Early Chronic Pancreatitis) as Emerging Diagnosis in Structural Causes of Dyspepsia: Evidence from Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Shear Wave Elastography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Sharing With Patients the Uncertainties Regarding the Management of Dyspepsia.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis in Functional Dyspepsia.Microorganisms · 2020Review
- Pros and Cons in general medicine and geriatrics, 2019.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia.
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to September 2019, with no language restrictions. Conference proceedings between 2001 and 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia in adult participants (age ≥18 years). Strategies of interest were prompt endoscopy; test for
resultsThe review identified 15 eligible randomised controlled trials that comprised 6162 adult participants. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Strategies were ranked according to P score, which is the mean extent of certainty that one management strategy is better than another, averaged over all competing strategies. "Test and treat" ranked first (relative risk of remaining symptomatic 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.02, P score 0.79) and prompt endoscopy ranked second, but performed similarly (0.90, 0.80 to 1.02, P score 0.71). However, no strategy was significantly less effective than "test and treat." Participants assigned to "test and treat" were significantly less likely to receive endoscopy (relative risk
conclusions"Test and treat" was ranked first, although it performed similarly to prompt endoscopy and was not superior to any of the other strategies. "Test and treat" led to fewer endoscopies than all other approaches, except symptom based management. However, participants showed a preference for prompt endoscopy as a management strategy for their symptoms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42019132528.
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.