全科医生如何处理消化不良?

D K Warndorff, J A Knottnerus, L G Huijnen, R Starmans
{"title":"全科医生如何处理消化不良?","authors":"D K Warndorff,&nbsp;J A Knottnerus,&nbsp;L G Huijnen,&nbsp;R Starmans","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper reports the incidence of dyspepsia in general practice, the characteristics of patients, the types of complaints presented and the management of the dyspeptic patient by general practitioners. Fourteen general practitioners in the Maastricht region of the Netherlands studied 318 consecutive patients presenting with dyspepsia. Two questionnaires were used: one filled in by the patient (82% response), the other by the physician (100% response). The diagnostic conclusions which were established after three months of follow-up were compared with the diagnostic hypotheses at the initial consultation. The annual consultation rate for dyspepsia was calculated as 27 per 1000 registered subjects. One third of the patients had an earlier history of dyspepsia. Almost all patients (95%) complained of pain, and 37% had been suffering from pain for more than three months before consulting the general practitioner. The general practitioner prescribed medication in 70% of cases; less commonly the patient was referred for x-ray (14%), endoscopy (13%) or to a specialist (11%). A higher age was associated with a higher probability of referral, and with the finding of organic disease. A history of ulcer disease was strongly correlated with the diagnosis of an ulcer during the current episode. The overall concordance between the general practitioner's diagnostic hypothesis at the initial consultation and the diagnostic conclusion after three months of follow-up was 78%; it was highest when minor pathology was suspected. We conclude that dyspepsia is managed well in general practice and is only rarely associated with major lesions. Dyspeptic patients referred to a specialist therefore constitute a highly selected population.</p>","PeriodicalId":75129,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners","volume":"39 329","pages":"499-502"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1712194/pdf/jroyalcgprac00012-0016.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How well do general practitioners manage dyspepsia?\",\"authors\":\"D K Warndorff,&nbsp;J A Knottnerus,&nbsp;L G Huijnen,&nbsp;R Starmans\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper reports the incidence of dyspepsia in general practice, the characteristics of patients, the types of complaints presented and the management of the dyspeptic patient by general practitioners. Fourteen general practitioners in the Maastricht region of the Netherlands studied 318 consecutive patients presenting with dyspepsia. Two questionnaires were used: one filled in by the patient (82% response), the other by the physician (100% response). The diagnostic conclusions which were established after three months of follow-up were compared with the diagnostic hypotheses at the initial consultation. The annual consultation rate for dyspepsia was calculated as 27 per 1000 registered subjects. One third of the patients had an earlier history of dyspepsia. Almost all patients (95%) complained of pain, and 37% had been suffering from pain for more than three months before consulting the general practitioner. The general practitioner prescribed medication in 70% of cases; less commonly the patient was referred for x-ray (14%), endoscopy (13%) or to a specialist (11%). A higher age was associated with a higher probability of referral, and with the finding of organic disease. A history of ulcer disease was strongly correlated with the diagnosis of an ulcer during the current episode. The overall concordance between the general practitioner's diagnostic hypothesis at the initial consultation and the diagnostic conclusion after three months of follow-up was 78%; it was highest when minor pathology was suspected. We conclude that dyspepsia is managed well in general practice and is only rarely associated with major lesions. Dyspeptic patients referred to a specialist therefore constitute a highly selected population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners\",\"volume\":\"39 329\",\"pages\":\"499-502\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1989-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1712194/pdf/jroyalcgprac00012-0016.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文报道了消化不良在全科医生中的发病率、患者的特点、主诉类型以及全科医生对消化不良患者的处理。荷兰马斯特里赫特地区的14名全科医生对318名连续出现消化不良的患者进行了研究。使用了两份问卷:一份由患者填写(82%回答),另一份由医生填写(100%回答)。三个月随访后得出的诊断结论与初次会诊时的诊断假设进行了比较。消化不良的年问诊率计算为每1000名注册受试者27人。三分之一的患者有较早的消化不良史。几乎所有的患者(95%)都抱怨疼痛,37%的患者在咨询全科医生之前已经遭受了超过三个月的疼痛。70%的病例由全科医生开药;不太常见的是,患者被转介去做x光检查(14%),内窥镜检查(13%)或专科医生(11%)。年龄越大,转诊的可能性越大,器质性疾病的发现也越明显。溃疡病史与当前发作期间溃疡的诊断密切相关。全科医生初诊时的诊断假设与随访3个月后的诊断结论的总体一致性为78%;当怀疑有轻微病理时,死亡率最高。我们的结论是,消化不良在一般实践中得到很好的管理,很少与重大病变相关。因此,转介给专科医生的消化不良患者构成了一个高度选定的人群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How well do general practitioners manage dyspepsia?

This paper reports the incidence of dyspepsia in general practice, the characteristics of patients, the types of complaints presented and the management of the dyspeptic patient by general practitioners. Fourteen general practitioners in the Maastricht region of the Netherlands studied 318 consecutive patients presenting with dyspepsia. Two questionnaires were used: one filled in by the patient (82% response), the other by the physician (100% response). The diagnostic conclusions which were established after three months of follow-up were compared with the diagnostic hypotheses at the initial consultation. The annual consultation rate for dyspepsia was calculated as 27 per 1000 registered subjects. One third of the patients had an earlier history of dyspepsia. Almost all patients (95%) complained of pain, and 37% had been suffering from pain for more than three months before consulting the general practitioner. The general practitioner prescribed medication in 70% of cases; less commonly the patient was referred for x-ray (14%), endoscopy (13%) or to a specialist (11%). A higher age was associated with a higher probability of referral, and with the finding of organic disease. A history of ulcer disease was strongly correlated with the diagnosis of an ulcer during the current episode. The overall concordance between the general practitioner's diagnostic hypothesis at the initial consultation and the diagnostic conclusion after three months of follow-up was 78%; it was highest when minor pathology was suspected. We conclude that dyspepsia is managed well in general practice and is only rarely associated with major lesions. Dyspeptic patients referred to a specialist therefore constitute a highly selected population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Day care surgery. Bacterial vaginosis. THE 'GOOD HOME' Coronary artery disease Choosing a Doctor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1