4.3 Article

Changing prevalence of upper gastrointestinal disease in 28 893 Koreans from 1995 to 2005

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 7, Pages 787-793

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32830e285a

Keywords

gastric cancer; Helicobacter pylori; peptic ulcer; reflux esophagitis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives Changes in the pattern of gastrointestinal diseases in a population tend to be influenced by changes in diet and lifestyle. Shifts in gastrointestinal disease from 1995 to 2005 in Korea were evaluated, retrospectively. Methods Seventeen nationwide medical centers participated in this study. The cross-sectional review of endoscopic findings in 28893 patients included 8441 patients from 1995,10350 patients from 2000, and 10 102 patients from 2005. Results The prevalence of reflux esophagitis increased from 1.8% in 1995 to 5.9% in 2000 and 9.1% in 2005 (P<0.001, the P value was only for the comparison between 1995 and 2005, the followings were as same). The prevalence of peptic ulcer diseases was 18.0% in 1995, 19.1% in 2000, and 20.2% in 2005 (P<0.001). Although no significant differences were noted in duodenal ulcers (8.4, 8.7, and 8.2%, P=0.449), gastric ulcers showed an increasing trend (9.6, 10.5, and 12.0%, P<0.001). The prevalence of gastric cancer increased from 3.4% in 1995 to 4.5% in 2000 (P<0.001), but then decreased to 2.4% in 2005 (P<0.001). The incidence of advanced gastric cancer was 2.5, 3.2, and 1.3%, respectively (P<0.001), and that of early gastric cancer remained constant with rates of 0.8%, 1.3, and 1.1%, respectively (P=0.056). Conclusion The cross-sectional review of data collected in 1995, 2000, and 2005 showed an increase in reflux esophagitis and peptic ulcer diseases. Meanwhile, the prevalence of gastric cancer increased until 2000, but decreased in 2005. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 21:787-793 (C) 2009 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available