ArticleKansas journal of medicine2020
Guideline Adherence in Dyspepsia Investigation and Treatment.
Article in Kansas journal of medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe impact of dyspepsia guidelines on clinical practice may be poor. Provider adherence with dyspepsia guidelines was examined to determine their impact on clinical practice.
methodsProvider adherence with the 2005 American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for the Management of Dyspepsia and the 2017 American College of Gastroenterology and Canadian Association of Gastroenterology joint Dyspepsia Management Guidelines was assessed on a national level using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). Patient visit data, including reason for visit of dyspepsia, diagnosis of dyspepsia, or diagnosis of
resultsProviders appeared to adhere to the 2005 ACG guidelines for 49.7% of patient visits. Providers appeared to adhere to the 2017 ACG/CAG guidelines for 51.0% of patient visits.
conclusionProvider adherence with the 2005 ACG and the 2017 ACG/CAG Dyspepsia Management Guidelines was determined to be low in this study, highlighting the need to increase evidence-based medical treatment and efficient resource use for dyspepsia.
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.