ABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: la verdadera prevalencia de la dispepsia en la comunidad es poco conocida, pues la mayoría de los estudios se han realizado sobre muestras no representativas de la -población general. El objetivo fue estudiar la prevalencia de la dispepsia en una muestra aleatoria de una población general, así como sus características sociodemográficas y epidemiológicas. DISEÑO EXPERIMENTAL Y PARTICIPANTES: se realizó un estudio epidemiológico prospectivo basado en una encuesta directa y personal en una muestra de 264 sujetos, elegida al azar, entre una población del sur de España. RESULTADOS: la prevalencia de dispepsia fue del 24 por ciento, sin apreciarse relación entre ésta y diversos parámetros demográficos, hábitos tóxicos o subgrupos de dispepsia. El 49 por ciento de la población se automedicaba y el 44 por ciento acudió en busca de ayuda médica por su dispepsia. Mostraron un síndrome de intestino irritable 36 sujetos (13,6 por ciento) y 20 de ellos referían también síntomas de dispepsia (55,5 por ciento). Habían sido investigados 40 sujetos con dispepsia (80 por ciento mediante radiología con papilla de bario, 45 por ciento con ecografía y 18 por ciento con gastroscopia), obteniéndose un diagnóstico de enfermedad orgánica en el 45 por ciento de ellos. El subgrupo de dispepsia similar a reflujo gastroesofágico fue el más frecuente (60 por ciento), observándose un amplio solapamiento entre los diversos subgrupos de dispepsia. Los anti-H. Pylorí-IgG fueron positivos en el 52 por ciento, pero no hubo relación entre la infección bacteriana y la presencia de dispepsia. CONCLUSIONES: la dispepsia afecta a una cuarta parte de nuestra población, asociándose a síndrome de intestino irritable en la mitad de los casos, pero sin relación con la presencia de una infección por H. pylori (AU)
Subject(s)
Middle Aged , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Male , Female , Humans , Helicobacter pylori , Spain , Helicobacter Infections , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Dyspepsia , Cross-Sectional Studies , Helicobacter InfectionsABSTRACT
AIM: The prevalence of dyspepsia in the community is poorly known, because most studies have used samples that were not representative of the general population. This study was intended to determine the prevalence of dyspepsia in a random sample of the general population, and its epidemiologic and sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: In this descriptive study we used a questionnaire administered during a personal interview to survey a random sample of 264 subjects in a Mediterranean population. RESULTS: The prevalence of dyspepsia was 24%; we found no relation between prevalence and demographic characteristics, smoking and drinking, or type of dyspepsia. Forty subjects with dyspepsia were examined and the specific diagnosis was found in 18 (45%) of them. The subgroup with reflux-like dyspepsia was the largest (60%), although there was considerable overlap between subgroups with reflux-like, ulcer-like and dysmotility-like dyspepsia. Anti-Helicobacter pylori antibodies (IgG) were found in 52% of the subjects, but bacterial infection was not related with dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS: Up to one-fourth of the general population in the city where the subjects reside may have dyspepsia. This disorder was associated with irritable bowel syndrome in half of the cases, but was not associated with H. pylori infection.
Subject(s)
Dyspepsia/epidemiology , Dyspepsia/microbiology , Helicobacter Infections/complications , Helicobacter Infections/epidemiology , Helicobacter pylori , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , SpainABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) share aetiopathogenic factors, and may therefore be part of a single disorder. This study was intended to determine their prevalence in the general population, and the degree of overlap between these two digestive disorders. DESIGN: Descriptive study. METHODS: A sample of 264 subjects chosen randomly from the population census of a city in Spain, and considered representative of the general population in this city, was surveyed by questionnaire. RESULTS: The prevalence of dyspepsia was 23.9%, and that of IBS was 13.6%. Of the subjects with dyspepsia, 31.6% had IBS, and of the subjects with IBS, 55.6% reported symptoms of dyspepsia. The prevalence of IBS was higher among subjects with dyspepsia (31.7%) than among those who reported no symptoms of dyspepsia (7.9%; P < 0.05). Moreover, the prevalence of IBS was similar in three subgroups identified according to the type of dyspepsia described (ulcer-like, reflux-like or dysmotility-like). When we compared subjects with both dyspepsia and IBS and those with dyspepsia alone, we found no significant differences in clinical characteristics except for abdominal pain and fear of cancer, which were more frequent in the former. Of the entire sample, 27.7% of the subjects sought medical attention for IBS and 17% missed work because of IBS. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that functional dyspepsia and IBS are two manifestations of a single, more extensive digestive system disorder.
