4.3 Article

Chronic gastritis in China: a national multi-center survey

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-14-21

关键词

Chronic gastritis; Endoscopy; Epidemiology

资金

  1. National key scientific and technological project [2012ZX09303011-002]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270539]
  3. Outstanding Young Scholars Fund of Second Military Medical University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chronic gastritis is one of the most common findings at upper endoscopy in the general population, and chronic atrophic gastritis is epidemiologically associated with the occurrence of gastric cancer. However, the current status of diagnosis and treatment of chronic gastritis in China is unclear. Methods: A multi-center national study was performed; all patients who underwent diagnostic upper endoscopy for evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms from 33 centers were enrolled. Data including sex, age, symptoms and endoscopic findings were prospectively recorded. Results: Totally 8892 patients were included. At endoscopy, 4389, 3760 and 1573 patients were diagnosed to have superficial gastritis, erosive gastritis, and atrophic gastritis, respectively. After pathologic examination, it is found that atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia were prevalent, which accounted for 25.8%, 23.6% and 7.3% of this patient population. Endoscopic features were useful for predicting pathologic atrophy (PLR = 4.78), but it was not useful for predicting erosive gastritis. Mucosal-protective agents and PPI were most commonly used medications for chronic gastritis. Conclusions: The present study suggests non-atrophic gastritis is the most common endoscopic finding in Chinese patients with upper GI symptoms. Precancerous lesions, including atrophy, intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia are prevalent in Chinese patients with chronic gastritis, and endoscopic features are useful for predicting pathologic atrophy.

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

4.3
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