Patient Satisfaction with Medication for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is increasingly regarded as an important aspect of measuring treatment success in individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). OBJECTIVE: To review how satisfied patients with GERD are with their medication, and to analyze the usefulness of patient satisfaction as a clinical end point by comparing it with symptom improvement. METHODS: Systematic searches of the PubMed and EMBASE databases identified clinical trials and patient surveys published between 1966 and 2009. RESULTS: Twelve trials reported that 56% to 100% of patients were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for GERD. Patient satisfaction levels were higher for PPIs than other GERD medications in two trials. The sample-size-weighted average proportion of patients 'satisfied' with their PPI after four weeks of treatment in trials was 93% (95% CI 87% to 99%), with 73% (95% CI 62% to 83%) being 'very satisfied'. In four surveys, the average proportion of patients 'satisfied' with their PPI treatment was 82% (95% CI 73% to 90%) and 62% (95% CI 48% to 75%) were 'very satisfied'. Seven trials found a positive association between patient satisfaction and symptom improvement, and two surveys between satisfaction and improved health-related quality of life. Three trials found that continuous treatment yielded higher rates of satisfaction than on-demand therapy. CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of patients were satisfied with their PPI medication in trials, and more patients were satisfied with PPIs than other medication types. An association between patient satisfaction and symptom resolution was found, suggesting that patient satisfaction is a useful end point for evaluating GERD treatment success.
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 | 0.008 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".