Evidence Hub

S389 Patient Factors Associated With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Diagnostic Evaluation Strategies: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Ravy K. Vajravelu, Jennifer M. Kolb, F. Scott, A. Tavakkoli, Amit G. Singal, D. Katzka, G. Falk, S. Wani

American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2021

135,720 participants

Abstract

Explorys. Adult patients above the age of 18 with a diagnosis of EoE were included. Prevalence data were extracted on patients with both EoE and CD, EoE alone, CD alone, or no disease. Adjusted odds ratios (adjusted for age and sex) were calculated by multivariable logistic regression modeling for coexistence of EoE and CD. Prevalence data for co-morbid atopic conditions including atopic dermatitis, asthma, and allergic rhinitis were collected. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine any potential associations between CD and other esophageal disorders including Barrett’s esophagus (BE), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and achalasia. Results: 43,130 and 135,720 patients were found to have a diagnosis of EoE or CD, respectively, while 870 patients had both diagnoses. Adjusted for age and gender, EoE patients had higher odds of having CD than the general population (OR 6.20, 95% CI 5.45-6.99, P-value , 0.05). Age and male gender were also significant risk factors for EoE, as expected (1.83, 1.79-1.87, p, 0.05) and (1.85, 1.81-1.90, p, 0.05). EoE patients with co-existing CD had higher rates of atopic co-morbidities including asthma (x2545.29, df51, P-value, 0.0001), atopic dermatitis (x2511.33, df51, P-value 0.0008), and allergic rhinitis (x2536.36, df51, p , 0.0001). Sensitivity analyses between CD and GERD (1.18, 0.89-1.43, p 0.47), CD and BE (0.95, 0.84-1.25, p 0.34), as well as CD and achalasia (1.13, 0.94-1.23, p 0.91) revealed no significant associations, as…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 135,720 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free