Are psychological interventions effective in treating functional dyspepsia? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common gastrointestinal disorder, characterized primarily by postprandial fullness or early satiety and/or pain in the epigastrium with no endoscopic evidence of disease. Psychological therapies have been adapted to the treatment of disordered gut-brain interaction such as FD. We sought to determine if psychological interventions were efficacious in providing symptom management and improving health-related quality of life in patients suffering from FD. METHODS: Data were sorted that belonged to Embase (1947 to January 2020), PsychINFO (1806 to January 2020), and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2020). Randomized controlled trials using a psychological intervention in adults meeting relevant diagnostic criteria for FD were included. Data including symptom scores and quality of life measures were extracted. A random-effect model meta-analysis with standardized mean differences was used. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials were identified that met our inclusion criteria. These were small, single-centered studies and used varying psychological therapies. Three studies had a sham treatment arm, leading to a high risk of bias in the remaining studies. All the studies reported beneficial effects of psychological treatment on patient's symptoms, some of which persisted up to 1 year. Psychological intervention was associated with an improvement in global FD symptom scores (standardized differences in means -1.33, 95% confidence interval -1.97 to -0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited data, the available evidence suggests that psychological therapy is beneficial in treating patients with FD and should be considered by treating physicians if available and patients are willing. Large well-designed, sham controlled trials are needed for this extremely common disorder.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".