Psychological interventions for non-ulcer dyspepsia
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have also shown that 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 behavioral therapy, relaxation therapy and hypnosis in the improvement of either individual or global dyspepsia symptom scores and quality of life scores patients with NUD. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were located through electronic searches of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycLIT, using very broad subject headings and text words. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were also searched and experts in the field were contacted. 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 individual, global dyspepsia symptom scores and quality of life (QoL) scores. MAIN RESULTS: We identified only four trials, each using different psychological interventions and three presenting results in a manner, that did not allow synthesis of the data to form a meta-analysis. All trials suggest that psychological interventions benefit dyspepsia symptoms and this effect persists for one year. However, all trials use 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 of these papers was too small. Unadjusted data was not statistically significant. The other problem of psychological intervention include low recruitment and high drop out rate which has been shown to be greater in patients receiving group therapy. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence from this review to confirm the efficacy of psychological intervention in NUD. There is also no evidence on the combined effects of pharmacological and psychological therapy. Nevertheless, if there are any benefits of psychological therapies, they are likely to persist long-term and NUD is a chronic relapsing and remitting disorder. Psychological therapies may therefore be offered to patients with severe symptoms that have not responded to pharmacological therapies.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".