Counselling by Primary Care Physicians May Help Patients with Heartburn-Predominant Uninvestigated Dyspepsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether strategies to counsel and empower patients with heartburn-predominant dyspepsia could improve health-related quality of life. METHODS: Using a cluster randomized, parallel group, multicentre design, nine centres were assigned to provide either basic or comprehensive counselling to patients (age range 18 to 50 years) presenting with heartburn-predominant upper gastrointestinal symptoms, who would be considered for drug therapy without further investigation. Patients were treated for four weeks with esomeprazole 40 mg once daily, followed by six months of treatment that was at the physician's discretion. The primary end point was the baseline change in Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire score. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients from nine centres were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. There was a statistically significant baseline improvement in all domains of the QOLRAD questionnaire in both study arms at four and seven months (P<0.0001). After four months, the overall mean change in QOLRAD score appeared greater in the comprehensive counselling group than in the basic counselling group (1.77 versus 1.47, respectively); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07). After seven months, the overall mean baseline change in QOLRAD score between the comprehensive and basic counselling groups was not statistically significant (1.69 versus 1.56, respectively; P=0.63). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized, comprehensive counselling intervention showed a positive initial trend in improving quality of life in patients with heartburn-predominant uninvestigated dyspepsia. Further investigation is needed to confirm the potential benefits of providing patients with comprehensive counselling regarding disease management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".