Global prevalence of, and risk factors for, uninvestigated dyspepsia: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Many cross-sectional surveys have reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia, but there has been no recent systematic review of data from all studies to determine its global prevalence and risk factors. DESIGN: MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMBASE Classic were searched (until January 2014) to identify population-based studies that reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia in adults (≥ 15 years old); dyspepsia was defined using symptom-based criteria or questionnaires. The prevalence of dyspepsia was extracted for all studies and according to the criteria used to define it. Pooled prevalence, according to study location and certain other characteristics, ORs and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 306 citations evaluated, 103 reported the prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia in 100 separate study populations, containing 312,415 subjects. Overall pooled prevalence in all studies was 20.8% (95% CI 17.8% to 23.9%). The prevalence varied according to country (from 1.8% to 57.0%) and criteria used to define dyspepsia. The greatest prevalence values were found when a broad definition of dyspepsia (29.5%; 95% CI 25.3% to 33.8%) or upper abdominal or epigastric pain or discomfort (20.4%; 95% CI 16.3% to 24.8%) were used. The prevalence was higher in women (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.36), smokers (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.40), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.27 to 1.99) and Helicobacter pylori-positive individuals (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.33). CONCLUSIONS: The overall pooled prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia was 21%, but varied among countries and according to the criteria used to define its presence. Prevalence is significantly higher in women, smokers, NSAID users and H. pylori-positive individuals, although these associations were modest.

Micronutrient deficiencies are frequent in adult patients with and without celiac disease on a gluten-free diet, regardless of duration and adherence to the diet.

OBJECTIVES: The only treatment for celiac disease (CD) is a strict gluten-free diet (GFD). Nutritional deficiencies are common in CD; however, how this is influenced by the presence of symptoms, duration of CD, and compliance of GFD is less clear. The objective of this study was to compare nutritional deficiencies in patients with CD to those of nonceliac populations on a GFD. The secondary outcomes were to compare deficiencies in short- (<2 y) versus long-term (≥2 y) GFD, and in those with persistent symptoms versus asymptomatic. METHODS: We included patients seen at the McMaster Celiac Clinic from June 2018 to August 2020. GFD adherence was assessed with the Celiac Dietary Adherence Test, and CD serology, vitamins, and trace minerals were measured in blood samples. We enrolled 221 patients, including 182 patients with CD and 39 controls. RESULTS: Overall, 103 of 182 patients with CD (56.6%) were following a GFD for >2 y and 119 patients (69.2%) were symptomatic. The most common micronutrient deficiencies were zinc (48.3%), ferritin (16.9%), and vitamin D (33.3%). There were no differences in micronutrient deficiencies between patients with CD and nonceliac controls, short- and long-term GFDs, or those strictly compliant with GFD and those who were fairly compliant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that nutrient deficiencies may be related more to GFD nutritional inadequacy rather than malabsorption.

What is the prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in subjects with dyspepsia? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Evolving definitions of dyspepsia may lead to differences in the prevalence of clinically significant findings encountered at upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in sufferers. However, few studies report the prevalence of endoscopic findings in individuals with dyspepsia. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis examining this. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through April 2010 to identify relevant articles (23,457 citations). Eligible studies recruited adults from the community, workplace, blood donation or screening clinics, family physician offices, or internal medicine clinics. Studies were required to report prevalence of dyspepsia and perform upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a proportion of, or all, participants. Prevalence of clinically significant endoscopic findings in subjects with and without dyspepsia was pooled for all studies, and compared using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of 240 papers evaluated, 151 reported prevalence of dyspepsia. Nine reported prevalence of endoscopic findings among 5389 participants. Erosive esophagitis was the most common abnormality encountered (pooled prevalence 13.4%) followed by peptic ulcer (pooled prevalence 8.0%). The only finding encountered more frequently in individuals with dyspepsia, compared with those without, was peptic ulcer (odds ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.82). Prevalence of erosive esophagitis was lower when the Rome criteria were used to define dyspepsia compared with a broad definition (6% vs 20%). CONCLUSIONS: Erosive esophagitis was the most common finding encountered at endoscopy for dyspepsia, though prevalence was lower when the Rome criteria were used to define dyspepsia. Only peptic ulcer was more common in individuals with dyspepsia.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in individuals with dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are common conditions that can coexist in patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate prevalence of IBS in dyspepsia. METHODS: Relevant articles published through August 2008 were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE literature searches (23,457 citations). Eligible studies included adults recruited from the community, the workplace, blood donation or screening clinics, and family physician offices or internal medicine clinics. Selected studies reported prevalence of dyspepsia and IBS within the same population. The prevalence of IBS in subjects with and without dyspepsia was pooled for all studies and compared. Odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The degree of overlap between dyspepsia and IBS was determined. RESULTS: Of 239 papers evaluated, 150 reported prevalence of dyspepsia and 19 (involving 18,173 subjects) reported the proportion of subjects with IBS within the same population. The prevalence of dyspepsia was 27% (95% CI, 23%-31%). The prevalence of IBS in subjects with dyspepsia was 37% (95% CI, 30%-45%) compared with 7% (95% CI, 5%-10%) in those without. The pooled OR for IBS in subjects with dyspepsia was 8 (95% CI, 5.74-11.16). The degree of overlap between the 2 conditions varied from 15% to 42%, depending on diagnostic criteria used for each. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with dyspepsia have an 8-fold increase in prevalence of IBS compared with the population. The strength of the association suggests common pathogenic mechanisms. Dyspeptic patients should be assessed routinely for IBS.