An International Primary Care Survey of GERD Terminology and Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Terminology used to describe upper gastrointestinal disorders differs by country and language. However, the extent of variation in physician understanding of GERD and associated conditions and symptoms is not known. AIM: To determine the knowledge of primary care physicians with regard to: terminology related to GERD, their understanding of related complications and extra-esophageal symptoms/conditions, and their use of guidelines relating to GERD. METHODS: Gastroenterologists from 17 countries asked primary care physician colleagues to complete a one-page online survey on GERD. RESULTS: 352 primary care physicians, (77% community-based, 23% hospital-based) completed the questionnaire. Gastroesophageal reflux disease/GERD (84%) or reflux/reflux disease (47%) were the terms mostly often used to record a diagnosis for patients with reflux-related symptoms or clinical manifestations; dyspepsia (15%), epigastric pain (10%), and gastritis (9%) were infrequently used. Erosive esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, stricture, and esophageal adenocarcinoma were recognized as being associated with GERD by 88, 71, 61 and 51% of physicians, respectively. Extra-esophageal problems of cough, sleep-related disorders, laryngitis and asthma were recognized to be associated with GERD by 74, 50, 48 and 47% of respondents. Thirty-nine percent of physicians stated that they did not use a specific definition of GERD; 33% used an international and 14% used a national guideline in managing patients. CONCLUSIONS: (1) GERD is well recognized, but its related terminology is variable throughout the world. (2) There was variable and incomplete recognition of extra-esophageal manifestations GERD. (3) Recognition of extra-esophageal diseases caused by GERD is variable. (4) Current GERD guidelines are infrequently used by primary care physicians.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".