We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editor's Correspondence |

The Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors as a Diagnostic Test for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Mattijs E. Numans, MD, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(2):247-248. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.2.247-b.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


The recently published article by Wang et al1 is a beautiful study, although the presentation and interpretation of the results cause some serious concern. In recent literature there have been 2 other meta-analyses summarizing the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as a diagnostic test for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), both leading to more attenuated conclusions.2,3 This, in my opinion, reflects reality better than the conclusions of Wang et al1 do. In the case of the PPI test, the choice of the outcome measure on effectiveness of treatment should be as close as possible to complete resolution of symptoms because any abdominal symptom is subject to placebo. However, Wang et al1 chose to consider a 50% symptom reduction enough for testing positive on PPI treatment. Although the authors suggest that the chance of having GERD is increased if more than a 50% symptom reduction in a patient is found, using a higher cutoff point for the test would further affect specificity (which is already low) as well as the sensitivity of the test. Even in these highly selected populations, many patients with functional disease might wrongly be diagnosed as having or not having GERD following PPI treatment. Cremonini et al2 indeed show in their tables that when the higher cutoff point “complete relief of symptoms” would have been chosen in the same studies, the summarized test characteristics would have been reduced significantly (diagnostic odds ratio from 13.83 to 7.80, both with wide confidence intervals).

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Can the Clinical History Distinguish Between Organic and Functional Dyspepsia?

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
What are the Results?