4.7 Article

Meta-analysis: the epidemiology of noncardiac chest pain in the community

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 34, Issue 2, Pages 172-180

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04702.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Prevalence of, and risk factors for, noncardiac chest pain in the community have not been well studied. Aims To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine these issues. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMBASE Classic were searched (up to March 2011) to identify population-based studies reporting prevalence of noncardiac chest pain in adults (>= 15 years) according to self-report, questionnaire or specific symptom-based criteria. Prevalence of noncardiac chest pain was extracted for all studies, and according to study location and certain other characteristics including presence or absence of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms, where reported. Pooled prevalence overall, as well as odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results Of 18 articles evaluated, 16 reported prevalence of noncardiac chest pain in 14 separate populations, containing 24 849 subjects. Pooled prevalence of noncardiac chest pain in all studies was 13% (95% CI 9-16). The prevalence of noncardiac chest pain was higher in Australian studies and in studies using a questionnaire to define its presence, compared with those using Rome I or II criteria. Prevalence was no different in women vs. men (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.82-1.20). The prevalence was markedly higher in subjects who also reported GERD (OR 4.71; 95% CI 3.32-6.70) and increased according to frequency of GERD symptoms. Conclusion Pooled prevalence of noncardiac chest pain in the community was 13%, but there were few studies. Rates did not appear to differ according to gender or age. Presence of GERD was strongly associated with noncardiac chest pain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available