4.6 Article

Laboratory parameters and nutritional status in patients with functional dyspepsia

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 300-304

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2011.01.012

Keywords

Functional dyspepsia; Diet composition; Nutritional status; Rome II criteria

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science, Technology and Development of the Republic of Serbia [156031]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To investigate differences in laboratory markers, nutritional status parameters and eating patterns among newly diagnosed patients with functional dyspepsia. Method: The investigation was performed on 180 newly diagnosed patients with functional dyspepsia, aged 20-79, which were referred to the gastroenterology unit of the Clinical and Hospital Center Bezanijska Kosa from April to October 2009. Rome II criteria were used for further classification. Results: ANOVA Bonferroni post hoc correction outlined that concentrations of serum magnesium and calcium were significantly lower in subjects with ulcer-like dyspepsia, while vitamin B12, glucose and immunoglobulin G level was significantly higher in group with dismotility-like dyspepsia. Statistical analysis revealed that the numbers of meal taken per day were significantly different. There was a statistical trend to skipping meals and to eat fast in patients with ulcer-like and dismotility-like functional dyspepsia when compared with non-specific dyspeptic subjects. Conclusion: Patients with ulcer-like functional dyspepsia suffered from epigastric pain and burning and from heartburn, while persons with dismotility-like dyspepsia were complaining about postprandial fullness, bloating and early satiety. They skipped meals more frequently and avoided intake of certain supplies which, together with eating habits, provoked or emphasized the annoying symptoms. (C) 2011 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available