On 19 September 2010, the first Asian FD consensus meeting was he

On 19 September 2010, the first Asian FD consensus meeting was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. At the meeting, each candidate statement was discussed in depth, and afterward, the statements were reviewed again and amended by the four teams, taking the discussions held buy Daporinad at the first consensus meeting into consideration. At this point, 34 consensus statements had been developed. The first e-mail voting on the consensus statements was done by all of the consensus members on 26 October 2010. Each member was asked to choose one of the following six levels of agreement on each statement (Table 1): (a) accept completely (b) accept with

minor reservation (c) accept with major reservation (d) reject with major reservation (e) reject with minor reservation, and (f) reject completely. Consensus members were also asked to add comments on each statement, if any. When the proportion of members who voted (a)

or (b) was 80% or higher, the statement was regarded as acceptable and a consensus was considered to have been reached. In the first e-mail vote, 25 of the 34 statements (73.5%) were acceptable and click here the remaining nine statements (26.5%) failed to reach the consensus level. After extensive discussions and subsequent revision of the consensus statements, the second e-mail voting was done on 35 statements on 11 January 2011. From this voting, 30 statements (85.7%) were acceptable

while five statements (14.3%) were unacceptable. Each statement was reviewed and amended again by each team, and a total of 32 consensus statements were developed for final voting. On 3 March 2011, the second Asian FD consensus meeting was held in Beijing, China. At the plenary meeting, voting on each statement was done using a keypad voting system. After each vote, a discussion was held, and if necessary, the statement was revised and voted on again until a consensus was reached. At the conclusion of this process, 29 consensus statements (seven on definition and diagnosis, five on epidemiology, nine on pathophysiology, and eight on management) had been finalized. A grade of evidence selleckchem and a strength of recommendation were applied to each statement according to the GRADE Working Group (Table 1).3 Algorithms for diagnosis (Fig. 1) and management (Fig. 2) of FD were made after the statements had been finalized. Statement 1. Dyspepsia refers to a symptom or set of symptoms that is (are) considered to originate from the gastroduodenal region. The dyspeptic symptoms are epigastric pain, epigastric burning, postprandial fullness, early satiation, and others, including bloating in the upper abdomen, nausea, vomiting, and belching. Grade of evidence: not applicable. Level of agreement: a: 89.5%; b: 5.3%; c: 5.3%; d: 0%; e: 0%; f: 0%.

Related posts:

  1. Updated Advisory Council Meeting Agenda for February 5th 2010
  2. Before ending the meeting, AREB members renewed their support for
  3. Decoy oligonucleotides containing these consensus motifs can bi
  4. Telaprevir VX-950 criteria defined consensus HPR have the effect of the change was due
  5. , 2010; Matsuda and Yuzaki, 2011; Uemura et al , 2010) The tripa
This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>