ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022
Comparing diagnostic performance of Cantonese-Chinese version of Rome IV criteria and a short Reference Standard for functional dyspepsia in China.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity and reliability of the Thai "Rome IV diagnostic questionnaires" for functional gastrointestinal disorders in neonates and toddlers.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- A preliminary exploration of a predictive model and nomogram for the efficacy of compound digestive enzyme therapy based on serum (PGI, PGII, VIP, and PRDX1) in patients with functional dyspepsia.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFunctional dyspepsia (FD) is diagnosed based on self-reported symptoms and negative upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings. The Rome criteria were not adopted as a diagnostic instrument in clinical guidelines due to their complexity. Different guidelines used relatively simple symptom assessment schemes with contents that vary significantly. A previously evaluated short Reference Standard may serve as a more standardised tool for guidelines. We evaluated its diagnostic accuracy against the Rome IV criteria in a cross-sectional study in Hong Kong.
methodsA total of 220 dyspeptic patients sampled consecutively from a tertiary hospital and the community completed the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire, which was translated into Cantonese-Chinese, and the Reference Standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated.
resultsAmong the participants, 160 (72.7%) fulfilled the Reference Standard with negative upper gastrointestinal endoscopic results. The Reference Standard identified patients with Rome IV-defined FD with 91.1% (95% CI 82.6%-96.4%) sensitivity and 37.6% (95% CI 29.6%-46.1%) specificity. The positive and negative LRs were 1.46 (95% CI 1.26-1.69) and 0.24 (95% CI 0.11-0.49), respectively. The AUC value was 0.64 (95% CI 0.59-0.69).
conclusionsThe Reference Standard can rule out patients without Rome IV-defined FD. It may be used as an initial screening tool for FD in settings where the use of the Rome IV criteria is impractical. It may also provide a uniform definition and diagnostic rule for future updates of clinical guidelines.
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.