Evidence-Based Recommendations for Short- and Long-Term Management of Uninvestigated Dyspepsia in Primary Care: An Update of the Canadian Dyspepsia Working Group (CanDys) Clinical Management Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper is an update to and extension of the previous systematic review on the primary care management of patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia (UD). The original publication of the clinical management tool focused on the initial four- to eight-week assessment of UD. This update is based on new data from systematic reviews and clinical trials relevant to UD. There is now direct clinical evidence supporting a test-and-treat approach in patients with nondominant heartburn dyspepsia symptoms, and head-to-head comparisons show that use of a proton pump inhibitor is superior to the use of H2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in the initial treatment of Helicobacter pylori-negative dyspepsia patients. Cisapride is no longer available as a treatment option and evidence for other prokinetic agents is lacking. In patients with long-standing heartburn-dominant (ie, gastroesophageal reflux disease) and nonheartburn-dominant dyspepsia, a once-in-a-lifetime endoscopy is recommended. Endoscopy should also be considered in patients with new-onset dyspepsia that develops after the age of 50 years. Conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetylsalicylic acid and cyclooxygenase-2-selective inhibitors can all cause dyspepsia. If their use cannot be discontinued, cotherapy with either a proton pump inhibitor, misoprostol or high-dose H2RAs is recommended, although the evidence is based on ulcer data and not dyspepsia data. In patients with nonheartburn-dominant dyspepsia, noninvasive testing for H pylori should be performed and treatment given if positive. When starting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for a prolonged course, testing and treatment with H2RAs are advised if patients have a history of previous ulcers or ulcer bleeding.
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 | 0.053 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".