Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul 3;1(4):265-274.
doi: 10.21873/cdp.10034. eCollection 2021 Sep-Oct.

History-taking, Clinical Signs, Tests and Scores for Detection of Non-organic Dyspepsia (NOD) Among Patients With Acute Abdominal Pain (AAP)

Maaret Eskelinen #  1 , Jannica Meklin #  1 , Tuomas Selander  2 , Kari Syrjänen  3   4 , Matti Eskelinen  1
Affiliations

History-taking, Clinical Signs, Tests and Scores for Detection of Non-organic Dyspepsia (NOD) Among Patients With Acute Abdominal Pain (AAP)

Maaret Eskelinen et al. Cancer Diagn Progn. .

Abstract

Background/aim: The diagnostic accuracy of history-taking, clinical signs and tests and diagnostic scores (DSs) for patients with non-organic dyspepsia (NOD) have been rarely evaluated.

Patients and methods: A cohort of 1333 patients presenting with acute abdominal pain (AAP) were studied, including 50 patients with confirmed NOD. The most significant diagnostic variables (in multivariate logistic regression analysis) were used to construct six different DS models and their diagnostic accuracy was compared with clinical symptoms and signs and tests. Meta-analytical techniques were used to detect the summary sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) estimates for each data set (symptoms, signs and tests as well as DS models).

Results: In hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) analysis, the area under curve (AUC) values for i) symptoms ii) signs and tests iii) DS were as follows: i) AUC=0.608 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.550-0.666]; ii) AUC=0.621 (95% CI=0.570-0.672) and iii) AUC=0.877 (95% CI=0.835-0.919). The differences between these AUC values (roccomp analysis) are as follows: between i) and ii) p=0.715; between i) and iii) p<0.0001; between ii) and iii) p<0.0001.

Conclusion: The present study is the first to provide evidence that the DS could be used in diagnosis of NOD. The major advantage of our DS is that this model does not need radiology or endoscopy to reach high diagnostic accuracy.

Keywords: HSROC; Non-organic dyspepsia; diagnostic accuracy; diagnostic score; signs; symptoms; tests.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The Authors report no conflicts of interest or financial ties.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sensitivity of history-taking in non-organic dyspepsia (NOD) (random-effects model). ES: Estimated sensitivity; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Specificity of history-taking in non-organic dyspepsia (NOD) (random-effects model). ES: Estimated specificity; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sensitivity of the signs and tests in non-organic dyspepsia (NOD) (random-effects model). ES: Estimated sensitivity; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Specificity of the clinical signs and tests in non-organic dyspepsia (NOD) (random-effects model). ES: Estimated specificity; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Sensitivity of diagnostic scores at six different cut-off levels (DS I-VI). ES: Estimated sensitivity; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Specificity of diagnostic scores at six different cut-off levels (DS I-VI). ES: Estimated specificity; CI: confidence interval.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve of the history-taking in non-organic dyspepsia (NOD).
Figure 8
Figure 8. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve of the clinical signs and tests in non-organic dyspepsia (NOD).
Figure 9
Figure 9. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve of the six diagnostic score models.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Talley NJ, Vakil NB, Moayyedi P. American gastroenterological association technical review on the evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129(5):1756–1780. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.09.020. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Talley NJ, Ford AC. Functional dyspepsia. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(19):1853–1863. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1501505. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saad RJ, Chey WD. Review article: current and emerging therapies for functional dyspepsia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24(3):475–492. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03005.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barberio B, Mahadeva S, Black CJ, Savarino EV, Ford AC. Systematic review with meta-analysis: global prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia according to the Rome criteria. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020;52(5):762–773. doi: 10.1111/apt.16006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Eskelinen M, Selander T, Lipponen P, Juvonen P. History-taking and the Usefulness Index in the diagnosis of functional dyspepsia. Isr Med Assoc J. 2014;16(8):497–501. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources