Review article: adherence to Rome criteria in therapeutic trials in functional dyspepsia

Summary Background The Rome criteria are currently required by health authorities for the inclusion of patients affected by functional dyspepsia in therapeutic trials. However, the degree of adherence to these criteria has not been formally verified. Aim To review adherence to the Rome criteria for...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 2014-09, Vol.40 (5), p.435-466
Hauptverfasser: Stanghellini, V., Cogliandro, R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 466
container_issue 5
container_start_page 435
container_title Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics
container_volume 40
creator Stanghellini, V.
Cogliandro, R.
description Summary Background The Rome criteria are currently required by health authorities for the inclusion of patients affected by functional dyspepsia in therapeutic trials. However, the degree of adherence to these criteria has not been formally verified. Aim To review adherence to the Rome criteria for inclusion criteria, outcome measures and endpoints in therapeutic trials on functional dyspepsia and the potential impact on the conclusions that can be drawn from these studies. Methods A total of 1818 articles were screened. Fifty‐eight trials claiming to include adults affected by functional dyspepsia as defined by the Rome criteria published as full articles in English between 2000 and 2013 were considered. Results Lack of full adherence to the Rome criteria of inclusion criteria was found in 54% of the studies, due to inclusion of patients with symptoms not reported in the Rome criteria or definitions of dyspeptic symptom that varied from those proposed by the Rome criteria. Ninety‐five per cent of clinical trials adopted therapeutic outcome measures that were not adherent to the Rome criteria, using questionnaires that did not include all dyspeptic symptoms or including symptoms other than those proposed by the Rome criteria. Conclusions Stringent criteria have not been adopted for inclusion criteria and outcome measures in the vast majority of published studies on functional dyspepsia that claim to have been carried out according to the Rome criteria. Appropriate questionnaires should be developed to promote adherence to internationally accepted definitions of the syndrome in future studies.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/apt.12865
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1552368007</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1552368007</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-e27aa2efe6bd3a88c0420fa2d5fab2f422ff076a3e569b71840aecdc054867cd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10FFr2zAQB3BRNpY03UO_QNHLYH1wc5ItWelbKO02CLSUFvZmLvKJqji2K9kL-fZTlqx72r0c3P24gz9j5wKuRKo59sOVkEarEzYVuVaZhFx_YFOQepFJI_IJO43xFQB0CfITm0gFSgsQU_bzkX552nIMg7cNXXOsXyhQa4kPHX_sNsRt8AMFj9y3fEhL7GlMmA9p1sT91I2tHXzXYsPrXeypjx7P2EeX1vT52Gfs-e726eZ7trr_9uNmucpsoQqVkSwRJTnS6zpHYywUEhzKWjlcS1dI6RyUGnNSerEuhSkAydYWVGF0aet8xr4e7vahexspDtXGR0tNgy11Y6yEUjLXBqBM9PJAbehiDOSqPvgNhl0loNoHWaUgqz9BJntxPDuuN1S_y7_JJfDlCDBabFzA1vr4zxmtC2EWyc0Pbusb2v3_Y7V8eDq8_g3FkIrD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1552368007</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Review article: adherence to Rome criteria in therapeutic trials in functional dyspepsia</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Stanghellini, V. ; Cogliandro, R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Stanghellini, V. ; Cogliandro, R.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Background The Rome criteria are currently required by health authorities for the inclusion of patients affected by functional dyspepsia in therapeutic trials. However, the degree of adherence to these criteria has not been formally verified. Aim To review adherence to the Rome criteria for inclusion criteria, outcome measures and endpoints in therapeutic trials on functional dyspepsia and the potential impact on the conclusions that can be drawn from these studies. Methods A total of 1818 articles were screened. Fifty‐eight trials claiming to include adults affected by functional dyspepsia as defined by the Rome criteria published as full articles in English between 2000 and 2013 were considered. Results Lack of full adherence to the Rome criteria of inclusion criteria was found in 54% of the studies, due to inclusion of patients with symptoms not reported in the Rome criteria or definitions of dyspeptic symptom that varied from those proposed by the Rome criteria. Ninety‐five per cent of clinical trials adopted therapeutic outcome measures that were not adherent to the Rome criteria, using questionnaires that did not include all dyspeptic symptoms or including symptoms other than those proposed by the Rome criteria. Conclusions Stringent criteria have not been adopted for inclusion criteria and outcome measures in the vast majority of published studies on functional dyspepsia that claim to have been carried out according to the Rome criteria. Appropriate questionnaires should be developed to promote adherence to internationally accepted definitions of the syndrome in future studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-2813</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2036</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/apt.12865</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25056101</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical Trials as Topic - methods ; Clinical Trials as Topic - standards ; Dyspepsia - diagnosis ; Dyspepsia - physiopathology ; Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen ; Guideline Adherence ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Other diseases. Semiology ; Patient Selection ; Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics, 2014-09, Vol.40 (5), p.435-466</ispartof><rights>2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-e27aa2efe6bd3a88c0420fa2d5fab2f422ff076a3e569b71840aecdc054867cd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-e27aa2efe6bd3a88c0420fa2d5fab2f422ff076a3e569b71840aecdc054867cd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fapt.12865$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fapt.12865$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,1432,27923,27924,45573,45574,46408,46832</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28664189$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25056101$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stanghellini, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cogliandro, R.</creatorcontrib><title>Review article: adherence to Rome criteria in therapeutic trials in functional dyspepsia</title><title>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics</title><addtitle>Aliment Pharmacol Ther</addtitle><description>Summary Background The Rome criteria are currently required by health authorities for the inclusion of patients affected by functional dyspepsia in therapeutic trials. However, the degree of adherence to these criteria has not been formally verified. Aim To review adherence to the Rome criteria for inclusion criteria, outcome measures and endpoints in therapeutic trials on functional dyspepsia and the potential impact on the conclusions that can be drawn from these studies. Methods A total of 1818 articles were screened. Fifty‐eight trials claiming to include adults affected by functional dyspepsia as defined by the Rome criteria published as full articles in English between 2000 and 2013 were considered. Results Lack of full adherence to the Rome criteria of inclusion criteria was found in 54% of the studies, due to inclusion of patients with symptoms not reported in the Rome criteria or definitions of dyspeptic symptom that varied from those proposed by the Rome criteria. Ninety‐five per cent of clinical trials adopted therapeutic outcome measures that were not adherent to the Rome criteria, using questionnaires that did not include all dyspeptic symptoms or including symptoms other than those proposed by the Rome criteria. Conclusions Stringent criteria have not been adopted for inclusion criteria and outcome measures in the vast majority of published studies on functional dyspepsia that claim to have been carried out according to the Rome criteria. Appropriate questionnaires should be developed to promote adherence to internationally accepted definitions of the syndrome in future studies.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Dyspepsia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Dyspepsia - physiopathology</subject><subject>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</subject><subject>Guideline Adherence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Other diseases. Semiology</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0269-2813</issn><issn>1365-2036</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10FFr2zAQB3BRNpY03UO_QNHLYH1wc5ItWelbKO02CLSUFvZmLvKJqji2K9kL-fZTlqx72r0c3P24gz9j5wKuRKo59sOVkEarEzYVuVaZhFx_YFOQepFJI_IJO43xFQB0CfITm0gFSgsQU_bzkX552nIMg7cNXXOsXyhQa4kPHX_sNsRt8AMFj9y3fEhL7GlMmA9p1sT91I2tHXzXYsPrXeypjx7P2EeX1vT52Gfs-e726eZ7trr_9uNmucpsoQqVkSwRJTnS6zpHYywUEhzKWjlcS1dI6RyUGnNSerEuhSkAydYWVGF0aet8xr4e7vahexspDtXGR0tNgy11Y6yEUjLXBqBM9PJAbehiDOSqPvgNhl0loNoHWaUgqz9BJntxPDuuN1S_y7_JJfDlCDBabFzA1vr4zxmtC2EWyc0Pbusb2v3_Y7V8eDq8_g3FkIrD</recordid><startdate>201409</startdate><enddate>201409</enddate><creator>Stanghellini, V.</creator><creator>Cogliandro, R.</creator><general>Blackwell</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201409</creationdate><title>Review article: adherence to Rome criteria in therapeutic trials in functional dyspepsia</title><author>Stanghellini, V. ; Cogliandro, R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4545-e27aa2efe6bd3a88c0420fa2d5fab2f422ff076a3e569b71840aecdc054867cd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Dyspepsia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Dyspepsia - physiopathology</topic><topic>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</topic><topic>Guideline Adherence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Other diseases. Semiology</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stanghellini, V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cogliandro, R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stanghellini, V.</au><au>Cogliandro, R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Review article: adherence to Rome criteria in therapeutic trials in functional dyspepsia</atitle><jtitle>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics</jtitle><addtitle>Aliment Pharmacol Ther</addtitle><date>2014-09</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>435</spage><epage>466</epage><pages>435-466</pages><issn>0269-2813</issn><eissn>1365-2036</eissn><abstract>Summary Background The Rome criteria are currently required by health authorities for the inclusion of patients affected by functional dyspepsia in therapeutic trials. However, the degree of adherence to these criteria has not been formally verified. Aim To review adherence to the Rome criteria for inclusion criteria, outcome measures and endpoints in therapeutic trials on functional dyspepsia and the potential impact on the conclusions that can be drawn from these studies. Methods A total of 1818 articles were screened. Fifty‐eight trials claiming to include adults affected by functional dyspepsia as defined by the Rome criteria published as full articles in English between 2000 and 2013 were considered. Results Lack of full adherence to the Rome criteria of inclusion criteria was found in 54% of the studies, due to inclusion of patients with symptoms not reported in the Rome criteria or definitions of dyspeptic symptom that varied from those proposed by the Rome criteria. Ninety‐five per cent of clinical trials adopted therapeutic outcome measures that were not adherent to the Rome criteria, using questionnaires that did not include all dyspeptic symptoms or including symptoms other than those proposed by the Rome criteria. Conclusions Stringent criteria have not been adopted for inclusion criteria and outcome measures in the vast majority of published studies on functional dyspepsia that claim to have been carried out according to the Rome criteria. Appropriate questionnaires should be developed to promote adherence to internationally accepted definitions of the syndrome in future studies.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell</pub><pmid>25056101</pmid><doi>10.1111/apt.12865</doi><tpages>32</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0269-2813
ispartof Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2014-09, Vol.40 (5), p.435-466
issn 0269-2813
1365-2036
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1552368007
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Free Content; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Clinical Trials as Topic - methods
Clinical Trials as Topic - standards
Dyspepsia - diagnosis
Dyspepsia - physiopathology
Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen
Guideline Adherence
Humans
Medical sciences
Other diseases. Semiology
Patient Selection
Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus
Treatment Outcome
title Review article: adherence to Rome criteria in therapeutic trials in functional dyspepsia
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T01%3A45%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Review%20article:%20adherence%20to%20Rome%20criteria%20in%20therapeutic%20trials%20in%20functional%20dyspepsia&rft.jtitle=Alimentary%20pharmacology%20&%20therapeutics&rft.au=Stanghellini,%20V.&rft.date=2014-09&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=435&rft.epage=466&rft.pages=435-466&rft.issn=0269-2813&rft.eissn=1365-2036&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/apt.12865&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1552368007%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1552368007&rft_id=info:pmid/25056101&rfr_iscdi=true