Systematic review with meta‐analysis: global prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia according to the Rome criteria

Summary Background Prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia varies across cross‐sectional surveys. This may be due to differences in definitions used or study methodology, rather than global variability. Aim To determine the global prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia according to Rome criteria. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify population‐based studies reporting prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia in adults (≥18 years old) according to Rome I, II, III or IV criteria. Prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia was extracted, according to criteria used to define it. Pooled prevalence, according to study location and certain other characteristics, odds ratios (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results Of 2133 citations evaluated, 67 studies fulfilled eligibility criteria, representing 98 separate populations, comprising 338 383 subjects. Pooled prevalence ranged from 17.6% (95% CI 9.8%‐27.1%) in studies defining uninvestigated dyspepsia according to Rome I criteria, to 6.9% (95% CI 5.7%‐8.2%) in those using Rome IV criteria. Postprandial distress syndrome was the commonest subtype, occurring in 46.2% of participants using Rome III criteria, and 62.8% with Rome IV. Prevalence of uninvestigated dyspepsia was up to 1.5‐fold higher in women, irrespective of the definition used. There was significant heterogeneity between studies in all our analyses, which persisted even when the same criteria were applied and similar methodology was used. Conclusions Even when uniform symptom‐based criteria are used to define the presence of uninvestigated dyspepsia, prevalence varies between countries. This suggests that there are environmental, cultural, ethnic, dietary or genetic influences determining symptoms.