MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia

2011· review· en· W2111464435 on OpenAlexaff
Shelly Soo, Paul Moayyedi, Jonathan J Deeks, Brendan Delaney, Maxine Lewis, David Forman

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicinePsychotherapistPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Studies have also shown that non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) patients have higher scores of anxiety, depression, neurotism, chronic tension, hostility, hypochondriasis and tendency to be more pessimistic when compared with the community controls. However, the role of psychological interventions in NUD remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to determine the effectiveness of psychological interventions including psychotherapy, psychodrama, cognitive behavioural therapy, relaxation therapy and hypnosis in the improvement of either individual or global dyspepsia symptom scores and quality of life scores in patients with NUD. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3-1999), MEDLINE (1966-99), EMBASE (1988-99), PsycLIT (1987-1999) and CINAHL (1982-99). Bibliographies of retrieved articles were also searched and experts in the field were contacted. Searches were updated on 10 December 2002 and 21 January 2004. The searches were re-run on 24 January 2005 and no new trials were found SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised studies assessing the effectiveness of psychological interventions (including psychotherapy, psychodrama, cognitive behavioural therapy, relaxation therapy and hypnosis) for non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collected included both individual and global dyspepsia symptom scores and quality of life (QoL) scores. MAIN RESULTS: We identified only four trials each using different psychological interventions; three presented results in a manner that did not allow synthesis of the data to form a meta-analysis. All trials suggested that psychological interventions benefit dyspepsia symptoms and this effect persists for one year. However, all trials used statistical techniques that adjusted for baseline differences between groups. This should not be necessary for a randomised trial that is adequately powered suggesting that the sample size was too small. Unadjusted data was not statistically significant. The other problems of psychological intervention included low recruitment and high drop out rate, which has been shown to be greater in patients receiving group therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from this review to confirm the efficacy of psychological intervention in NUD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.341
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.134 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207