Measuring dyspepsia: a new severity index validated in Bologna.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of the severity of dyspepsia symptoms before and after treatment and determining what is a significant change is a major problem in designing dyspepsia treatment studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reproducibility, validity and responsiveness to treatment of a dyspepsia questionnaire to be used in clinical and population-based studies. METHODS: Seventy-three dyspeptic patients (35 male, 38 female; mean age 52 years) and 75 healthy volunteers (32 male, 43 female; mean age 52 years) were included. Subjects were interviewed for the presence/absence and severity/frequency of 19 gastrointestinal symptoms. Severity was measured on a 5-point scale. Frequency was also recorded on a 5-point scale. A global symptom index (severity x frequency) was calculated for the eight most severe symptoms; a mean global symptom index (8-MGSI) was considered for the evaluation of the instrument. To evaluate intra-observer variation, one author interviewed subjects (T0) and then repeated the interview 1 week later (T1). For inter-observer variation, two authors interviewed patients. VALIDITY was measured by comparing 8-MGSI of the dyspepsia patients to those of healthy volunteers. Responsiveness was assessed by comparing mean global symptom index before and 1 month after appropriate therapy. RESULTS: Reproducibility: The mean 8-MGSI was 4.5 at T0 and 3.7 at T1 with a correlation coefficient of 0.62. As for inter-observer variation, the average 8-MGSI was 4.8 by the first author and 3.9 by the second with a correlation coefficient of 0.60. VALIDITY: The mean 8-MGSI was, respectively, 1.4 in healthy volunteers and 4.8 in dyspeptic patients (p = 0.001). Responsiveness: After treatment, a significant improvement in 8-MGSI was detected (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This questionnaire is a reliable, valid and responsive instrument for measuring the presence, severity and frequency of dyspepsia.

Helicobacter pylori: optimum diagnosis and test of cure.

The fact that about 50% of the world's population is infected with Helicobacter (H.) pylori and the important role that this bacterium plays in public health have been important incentives in the search for accurate diagnostic methods. A large number of invasive and non-invasive methods have been used to diagnose H. pylori infection. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages and each practitioner should choose the best diagnostic method according to the facilities available. Non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection are largely used in clinical practice and in management of patients with gastroduodenal disease. Serology is the most widespread test but its use is not advised in the post-treatment follow-up. The Urea Breath Test is a simple, safe and highly accurate method ideal for evaluating the short-term follow-up of H. pylori eradication after therapy.

Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection: non-invasive diagnostic tests.

The non-invasive urea breath test can demonstrate the presence of Helicobacter pylori infection with the same accuracy as invasive methods (histology, rapid urease test, culture), but with less distress and inconvenience to the patient. It is evident that this test can and should substitute invasive methods in patients with uncomplicated duodenal ulcer, in those with non-ulcer dyspepsia and in all who have gastrointestinal disorders that do not require endoscopic examination. The urea breath test has a primary role for determining the success of eradication therapy. It is ideal for short- and long-term follow-up, particularly in the case of duodenal ulcer, which is strictly related to the presence of Helicobacter pylori. In serious disease, when endoscopic examination is mandatory, such as complicated ulcer or mucose associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, the urea breath test can still improve the diagnostic accuracy of Helicobacter pylori infection as it does not imply sampling error, to which biopsy is subject.