HOW MUCH ULCER IS ULCER-LIKE - DIAGNOSTIC DETERMINANTS OF PEPTIC-ULCER IN OPEN ACCESS GASTROSCOPY

被引:14
作者
NUMANS, ME
VANDERGRAAF, Y
DEWIT, NJ
TOUWOTTEN, FWMM
DEMELKER, RA
机构
[1] Department of Epidemiology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, CG, 3584
关键词
D O I
10.1093/fampra/11.4.382
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
A cross-sectional diagnostic prevalence study was carried out within a multi-center experiment with open access gastroscopy in Utrecht, The Netherlands. The objectives of the study was to contribute to improvement of patient selection for open access gastroscopy and to evaluate diagnostic determinants for peptic ulcer. Data were analysed in all 861 patients who were consecutively newly referred during the experiment to undergo gastrocopy. Patient characteristics and outcomes of gastroscopies were recorded. Univariate and multivariate (logistic) analyses were carried out and the results were evaluated with ROC (receiver operating characteristic) analysis. The most important clinical characteristics to be used for prediction of peptic ulcer are pain on an empty stomach, absence of pain after a meal and absence of obstructive complaints. The scoring list derived from the full model, comprising these characteristics together with age, sex, information on former dyspeptic diseases, medication and smoking ('basic characteristics'), predicted peptic ulcer with an AUC of 0.78. The 'ulcer-like' model, with characteristics known from the literature, had an AUC of 0.76. The amount of gastroscopy requests on patient suspected of a peptic ulcer could have been reduced from 60 to 44%. Forcing 'basic characteristics' into scoring lists on peptic ulcer improved the pre-diagnostic test capacities. The presented scoring list may improve gastroscopy requesting by GPs aiming at finding peptic ulcers. Practical manageability of the list should be prospectively evaluated in future experiments.
引用
收藏
页码:382 / 388
页数:7
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
Dooley C.P., Larson A.W., Double contrast barium meal and upper GI endoscopy, a comparative study, Ann Intern Med, 101, pp. 538-545, (1984)
[2]  
Jones R., Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, a view from general practice, J R Coll Gen Pract, 36, pp. 6-8, (1986)
[3]  
Kerrigan D.D., Brown S.R., Hutchinson G.H., Open access gastroscopy: Too much to swallow?, Br Med J, 300, pp. 374-376, (1990)
[4]  
Dooley C.P., Weiner J.M., Larson A.W., Endoscopy or radiography?—The patient's choice, Am J Med, 80, pp. 203-207, (1986)
[5]  
Davenport P.M., Morgan A.G., Darnborough A., De Dombal F.T., Can preliminary screening of dyspeptich patients allow more effective use of investigational techniques?, Br Med J, 291, pp. 217-220, (1985)
[6]  
Kahn K.K., Greenfield S., Health and public policy committee, American College of Physicians. Endoscopy in the evaluation of Dyspepsia, Ann Intern Med, 102, pp. 266-269, (1985)
[7]  
Colin-Jones D.G., Management of dyspepsia: Report of a Working Party, Lancet, 1, pp. 576-579, (1988)
[8]  
Mickey J., Greenland S., A study of the impact of confounder-selection criteria on effect estimation, Am J Epidemiol, 129, pp. 125-137, (1989)
[9]  
Der S.Y.V., Verbeek A., Ruijs J., Curves for the initial assessment of new diagnostic tests, Fam Pract, 9, pp. 506-511, (1992)
[10]  
Begg C.B., Advances in statistical methodology for diagnostic medicine in the 1980's, Stat Med, 10, pp. 1887-1891, (1991)