4.4 Article

Unhealthy dietary behavior in refractory functional dyspepsia: A multicenter prospective investigation in China

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES
卷 15, 期 12, 页码 654-659

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12199

关键词

epigastric pain syndrome; food habit; functional dyspepsia; postprandial distress syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo determine the association of dietary behavior with refractory functional dyspepsia (RFD) and its subtypes in Chinese patients. MethodsThe medical records of patients admitted to the Outpatient Department of Gastroenterology of four hospitals in Mainland China for upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms from June to September 2012 were reviewed and their characteristics were collected. Functional dyspepsia (FD) was diagnosed based on the Rome III criteria. RFD was defined as FD with continuous symptoms for at least 6 months that was unresponsive to at least two kinds of medications. Another 100 healthy volunteers were included as controls. The participants' dietary behaviors were investigated using a questionnaire survey. ResultsOverall, 1341 FD patients were enrolled in the study, including 327 RFD and 1014 non-RFD (NRFD). Unhealthy dietary behaviors were more prevalent in both RFD and NRFD than in the healthy controls. Skipping meals, eating extra meals and a preference to sweet food and gas-producing food were more common in the RFD patients. Compared with NRFD, RFD-epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) patients preferred spicy food, whereas those with postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) preferred sweet food and gas-producing food, and those with both EPS and PDS were found to skip meals and take extra meals more often. Logistic regression analysis showed that skipping meals, eating extra meals and a preference to sweet food and gas-producing food were risk factors for RFD. ConclusionUnhealthy dietary behaviors, especially skipping meals, eating extra meals and a preference to sweet food and gas-producing food, were correlated with RFD and its subtypes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据