5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prevalence of dyspepsia: the epidemiology of overlapping symptoms.

      Postgraduate Medical Journal
      Dyspepsia, diagnosis, epidemiology, etiology, pathology, Family Practice, Great Britain, Humans, Peptic Ulcer, complications, Prevalence

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Studies of the epidemiology of dyspepsia have been complicated by the use of different symptom definitions, subject populations and time frames of investigation. Published figures for the prevalence of dyspepsia vary from 20% to 40%, of which perhaps only a quarter can be attributed to peptic ulcer disease. General practitioners see only a fraction of the dyspepsia within the community, the majority of which is either ignored or treated by self-medication. However, dyspepsia still accounts for about 3-4% of all general practice consultations and for about 14% of all patients attending. In about half of all cases, even extensive investigation reveals no underlying organic lesion. There has been much recent interest in the clinical value of grouping dyspeptic symptoms into particular subtypes. These have been called ulcer-like, dysmotility-like and reflux-like. Although these patterns have descriptive value, there is no evidence that they result from discrete pathophysiological processes. Indeed, studies both in general practice and in the community show a large degree of overlap between them.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          8183747
          2397860

          Chemistry
          Dyspepsia,diagnosis,epidemiology,etiology,pathology,Family Practice,Great Britain,Humans,Peptic Ulcer,complications,Prevalence

          Comments

          Comment on this article