OBJECTIVES: Attempts to establish a clinical diagnosis in dyspeptic patient
s have generally been unrewarding. However, studies in unselected dyspeptic
patients are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the value of
the unaided clinical diagnosis by general practitioners (GP) and by experie
nced gastroenterologists (GA) in unselected dyspeptic patients in primary c
are.
METHODS: Three hundred forty-seven patients with epigastric pain/discomfort
for more than 2 wk who were consulting general practitioners (n = 73), but
without alarm symptoms. GPs and GAs gave a provisional diagnosis based on
an unstructured interview. All patients underwent endoscopy within 5 days o
f referral. Validity of the provisional diagnoses was measured using the en
doscopic diagnoses as the gold standards.
RESULTS: For GPs, the sensitivity of a provisional diagnosis of peptic ulce
r was 61% [95% confidence intervals (CI): 46-74%]; for specificity 73%, the
95% CI was 68-78%; and for positive predictive values, it was 28%, the 95%
CI was 20-37%. GAs were more reluctant to predict ulcer, leading to a high
er specificity: 84% (95% CI: 79-88%), but a similar sensitivity: 55% (95% C
I: 40-69%). The GPs were unable to distinguish between functional and organ
ic dyspepsia (chance-corrected overall validity: 9%; 95% CI: 0-18%). GPs an
d GAs agreed in their provisional diagnosis in only 45% of the patients, in
whom the diagnosis was confirmed by endoscopy in 2/3.
CONCLUSION: The unaided clinical diagnosis given by the GP and by the GA in
dyspeptic patients in primary care is unreliable. Nearly half of patients
with ulcer or esophagitis were misclassified, despite a high susceptibility
to organic disease. Different patients were problematic for GPs and GAs, w
hich may indicate that most dyspeptic patients do not present with symptoms
characteristic of a specific disease. (C) 2001 by Am. Cell. of Gastroenter
ology.