Efficacy of psychotropic drugs in functional dyspepsia: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a chronic gastroduodenal disorder. Individuals with FD demonstrate visceral hypersensitivity, abnormal central pain processing, and low mood, but it is unclear whether psychotropic drugs are an effective treatment for the condition. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to June 2015) for RCTs recruiting adults with FD comparing psychotropic drugs with placebo. We contacted authors directly to maximise trial eligibility and minimise risk of bias for studies. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with 95% CIs. RESULTS: The search identified 2795 citations; 13 RCTs (1241 patients) were eligible. Ten trials were at low risk of bias. The RR of FD symptoms not improving with psychotropic drugs versus placebo was 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.91) (number needed to treat=6; 95% CI 4 to 16). However, benefit was limited to antipsychotics and tricyclic antidepressants. When only studies that excluded individuals with coexistent mood disorder were considered, there was no benefit. Total numbers of adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal were significantly more common, with a number needed to harm of 21 for both. CONCLUSIONS: Psychotropic drugs may be an effective treatment for FD, but the effect appears to be limited to antipsychotics and tricyclic antidepressants with fewer trials for other agents, meaning that firm conclusions for efficacy cannot be made. More data from high quality RCTs are required to support their use in the treatment of FD.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".