Evidence Hub

Global prevalence of functional dyspepsia according to Rome criteria, 1990–2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kwanjoo Lee, Chang-Il Kwon, A. Ö. Yeniova, Ai Koyanagi, Louis Jacob, Lee Smith, Seung Won Lee, M. Rahmati et al.

Scientific Reports, 2024

256,915 participants · 71 citations

Abstract

Although functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common functional gastroduodenal disorder with a high socioeconomic burden, little is known about its global prevalence. Thus, we performed a comprehensive study to estimate long-term trends in the prevalence of FD. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar from 1990 to 2022 for population-based studies that reported the prevalence of FD in adults (≥ 18 years old) according to Rome I, II, III, or IV criteria. The prevalence of FD was extracted from included studies to obtain pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and 95% prediction intervals. Subgroup analysis was performed according to certain characteristics, including geographic region. A total of 44 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 256,915 participants from 40 countries across six continents. The overall global pooled prevalence of FD was 8.4% (95% CI 7.4–.9.5). The prevalence was the highest in Rome I (11.9%; 95% CI 5.1–25.4) and lowest in Rome IV (6.8%; 95% CI 5.8–7.9). Developing countries showed a higher prevalence than developed countries (9.1% versus 8.0%), and prevalence was higher in women, irrespective of the definition used (9.0% versus 7.0%). The pooled prevalence gradually decreased from 1990 to 2020 (12.4% [8.2–18.3] in 1990–2002 versus 7.3% [6.1–8.7] in 2013–2020). The prevalence of FD differs by country, economic status, geographical region, and sex, and the global prevalence has been gradually declining. Despite the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 256,915 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