2007
DOI: 10.1097/01.mpg.0000233189.10695.74
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Notices

Abstract: The water load test seems to be a poor diagnostic test for functional dyspepsia because of poor sensitivity. However, future research should examine whether the water load test is identifying a subset of children with functional dyspepsia experiencing a specific mechanosensory dysfunction and whether the water load test can predict clinical response to specific therapeutic interventions.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
11
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
2
11
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast to an earlier report by our group, the water load volume did not differ between FD patients and controls in this study [22]. In the previous report, FD patients as a group had significantly lower water load volumes as compared to controls [22].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 82%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In contrast to an earlier report by our group, the water load volume did not differ between FD patients and controls in this study [22]. In the previous report, FD patients as a group had significantly lower water load volumes as compared to controls [22].…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 82%
“…In the previous report, FD patients as a group had significantly lower water load volumes as compared to controls [22]. However, there was considerable variation in volumes within the FD patients and water load volume had a low sensitivity in identifying patients with FD.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although the water load test may not be useful for identification of pediatric FD due to suboptimal sensitivity, children diagnosed with FD often have abnormal test results [36] . In a controlled study by Schurman et al [36] , 68 pediatric patients with FGIDs and 26 healthy children completed the Behavioral Assessment Scale for Children- [36] 28 FD Hoffman et al [37] 15 FD Chitkara et al [38] 101 CAP Anderson et al [39] Gastric barostat 16 FD Hoffman et al [47] 10 RAP, 10 IBS Di Lorenzo et al [48] Electromechanical function Gastric emptying breath test 28 FD Hoffman et al [37] 15 FD Chitkara et al [38] Gastric emptying scintigraphy 57 FD Chitkara et al [76] 30 FD Friesen et al [77] Gastric Emptying ultrasound 41 FD Devanarayana et al [78] 42 FD Boccia et al [79] Accommodation ultrasound 20 RAP Olafsdottir et al [94] 20 RAP Olafsdottir et al [95] 20 non-ulcer dyspepsia Cucchiara et al [96] SPECT 15 FD Chitkara et al [38] Electrogastrogram 30 FD Friesen et al [77] 15 FD Chen et al [106] 7 non-ulcer dyspepsia Di Lorenzo et al [114] Antroduodenal manometry 11 non-ulcer dyspepsia Cucchiara et al [109] 34 non-ulcer dyspepsia Di Lorenzo et al [110] 7 non-ulcer dyspepsia Di Lorenzo et al [114] Wireless motility capsule 22 mixed upper GI symptoms Green et al [118] [138] Citalopram 25 RAP Campo et al [140] Famotidine 25 RAP with dyspepsia See et al [148] Omeprazole 169 FD Dehghani et al [149] Cisapride 10 non-ulcer dyspepsia Riezzo et al [154] Erythromycin 7 FD Cucchiara et al [172] Cyproheptadine 44 FD Rodriguez et al [187] Peppermint oil 42 IBS Kline et al [191] Gut-directed hypnotherapy 52 FAP or IBS Vlieger et al [200] 34 ...…”
Section: Water Load Testmentioning
confidence: 99%