1. What Is the Prevalence of Clinically Significant Endoscopic Findings in Subjects With Dyspepsia? Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 
Alexander C. Ford, Avantika Marwaha, Allen Lim, Paul Moayyedi 
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages e2 (October 2010)
DOI: /j.cgh
Copyright © 2010 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

2. Figure 1
Flow diagram of assessment of studies identified in the systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2010 8, e2DOI: ( /j.cgh )
Copyright © 2010 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

3. Figure 2
(A) Pooled prevalence of various endoscopic findings in studies using a broad definition of dyspepsia. (B) Pooled prevalence of various endoscopic findings in studies using the Rome criteria to define dyspepsia.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2010 8, e2DOI: ( /j.cgh )
Copyright © 2010 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

4. Figure 3
(A) Pooled prevalence of various endoscopic findings in Asian studies. (B) Pooled prevalence of various endoscopic findings in Western studies.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2010 8, e2DOI: ( /j.cgh )
Copyright © 2010 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

5. Supplementary Figure 1
(A) Prevalence of erosive esophagitis in individuals with dyspepsia. (B) Prevalence of peptic ulcer in individuals with dyspepsia.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2010 8, e2DOI: ( /j.cgh )
Copyright © 2010 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

6. Supplementary Figure 2
(A) Pooled odds ratio for peptic ulcer in individuals with dyspepsia versus those without. (B) Pooled odds ratio for erosive esophagitis in individuals with dyspepsia versus those without.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2010 8, e2DOI: ( /j.cgh )
Copyright © 2010 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions