4.4 Article

Prevalence of Uninvestigated Dyspepsia and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Korea: A Population-Based Study Using the Rome III Criteria

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 59, Issue 11, Pages 2721-2729

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-014-3243-y

Keywords

Dyspepsia; Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Prevalence; Epidemiology

Funding

  1. Dong-A ST

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There have been few population-based studies on the prevalences of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dyspepsia using Rome III criteria in Asian countries. A population-based, cross-sectional study was conducted by telephone interviews of 5,000 Koreans between the ages of 20-69 years. Gastrointestinal symptoms were assessed by a translated Korean version of Rome III criteria. Uninvestigated dyspepsia (UID) was defined by symptom criteria of Rome III. GERD was defined by troublesome heartburn and/or acid regurgitation occurring at least once a week. The EQ5D assessment tool was used for the evaluation of quality of life. The prevalences of UID, postprandial distress syndrome (PDS), and epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) were 7.7, 5.6, and 4.2 %, respectively. Overlap between PDS and EPS was found in 27.1 % (104/384) of subjects with UID. There were no significant differences in demographic variables between patients with PDS and EPS. The prevalence of GERD was 7.1 %. Overlap between GERD and UID was found in 50.0 % of GERD patients. The EQ5D index of patients without either UID or GERD was 0.92 +/- A 0.07, and those of patients with only UID, with only GERD, and with both UID and GERD were 0.88 +/- A 0.09, 0.88 +/- A 0.11, and 0.84 +/- A 0.15, respectively. GERD and UID based on Rome III criteria were prevalent and significantly affected the quality of life in Korea. In Korean patients with UID, there was considerable overlap and there were no significant differences in demographic variables between PDS and EPS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available