BMC gastroenterology · 2022
Comparing diagnostic performance of Cantonese-Chinese version of Rome IV criteria and a short Reference Standard for functional dyspepsia in China.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ho Leonard, Chen Shuijiao, Ho Fai Fai, Wong Charlene H L, Ching Jessica Y L, Cheong Pui Kuan, Wu Irene X Y, Liu Xiaowei, Leung Ting Hung, Wu Justin C Y, Chung Vincent C H
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Functional 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.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: Among 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).
CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: Among 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).
CONCLUSIONS: The 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.