Yield of alarm features in predicting significant endoscopic findings among hospitalized patients with dyspepsia

Table 6 Correlation between radiologic findings during hospitalization and endoscopic findings, n (%)

Imaging modality	Total (%), n = 605	SEFs, n = 174	No SEFs, n = 431	OR	95%CI	P value
Imaging modality not performed	188 (31.2)	64 (37)	124 (28.8)	1.45	0.99-2.1	0.051
Imaging modality performed	415 (68.8)	109 (63)	306 (71.2)
CT	345 (57)	n = 100	n = 245
Normal abdominal CT	214(62)	31 (31)	183 (74.7)	6.57	3.94-11	< 0.001
CT shows suspected PUD	5 (0.8)	2 (2.0)	3 (1.2)	1.65	0.27-100	0.59
CT shows suspected SOL	35 (10.1)	26 (26.0)	9 (3.7)	9.21	4.13-20.54	< 0.001
CT shows bowel wall thickening	60 (17.4)	25 (25.0)	35 (14.3)	2	1.12-3.56	0.02
CT shows stricture	5 (0.8)	2 (2.0)	3 (1.2)	1.65	0.27-10	0.59
CT shows metastatic disease	12 (2.0)	9 (9.0)	3 (1.2)	8	2.11-30.13	0.002
CT shows distended stomach	9 (1.5)	5 (5.6)	4 (1.6)	3.17	0.83-12.1	0.09
CT shows lymphadenopathy	8 (1.3)	3(3.0)	5 (2.0)	1.48	0.35-6.33	0.59
US	113 (18.7)	n = 19	n = 94
Normal abdominal US	110 (97.3)	19 (100)	91 (96.8)	0		1
US shows cholecystitis	3 (2.7)	0 (0.0)	3 (3.2)

CI: Confidence interval (calculated on the basis of univariate logistic regression); CT: Computerized tomography; OR: Odds ratio; SEFs: Significant endoscopic findings; SOL: Space-occupying lesion; US: Ultrasound.