Review article: Functional dyspepsia and pregnancy—Effects and management in a special population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Around 10% of Americans meet the Rome IV criteria for functional dyspepsia (FD), with a significantly higher rate in women. FD also has a higher prevalence in women below the age of 50, suggesting that women who are affected are likely to be of reproductive age. Unfortunately, there is a lack of research or evidence-based guidelines on managing FD in pregnancy. AIMS AND METHODS: To address this issue, we aimed to perform a systematic review of the interactions between FD and pregnancy and managing pre-existing FD in the peripartum and post-partum phases using current lifestyle, pharmacological, non-pharmacological and alternative medicine interventions. RESULTS: Due to the lack of Rome IV FD-specific data in pregnancy, we instead performed a narrative review on how existing FD interventions could be extrapolated to the pregnant population. Where possible we use the highest level of available evidence or official guidelines to answer these questions, which often involves synthesising treatment and safety evidence of these interventions in other diseases during pregnancy. Finally, we highlight current substantial knowledge gaps requiring further research for the safe management of a pregnant patient with pre-existing FD. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, despite the paucity of knowledge of treating FD during pregnancy, providers can mitigate this uncertainty by planning ahead with the patient. Patients should ideally minimise treatment until after breastfeeding. However, interdisciplinary resources are available to ensure that minimal-risk interventions are maximised, while interventions with more risks, if necessary, are justifiable by both the patient and the care team. Future investigations should continue to elicit the mechanistic relationship between FD and pregnancy while cautiously expanding prospective research on promising and safe therapies in pregnant patients with pre-existing 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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".