Body mass index and chronic unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms: an adult endoscopic population based study

Background: We aimed to determine whether obese subjects experience more gastro-oesophageal reflux (GORS) symptoms than normal subjects, and further to determine if this association was explained by oesophagitis or medications that lower oesophageal sphincter pressure. Methods: In a representative Swedish population, a random sample (n = 1001, mean age 53.5 years, 51% women) had upper endoscopy. GORS was defined as any bothersome heartburn or acid regurgitation. Results: The prevalence of obesity (body mass index ⩾30) was 16%; oesophagitis was significantly more prevalent in obesity (26.5%) than in normal subjects (9.3%). There were associations between obesity and GORS (odds ratio (OR) 2.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39, 3.01)), epigastric pain (OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.05, 2.55)), irritable bowel symptoms (OR 1.58 (95% CI 1.05, 2.38)), any abdominal pain (OR 1.59 (95% CI 1.08, 2.35)), vomiting (OR 3.11 (95% CI 1.18, 8.20)), retching (OR 1.74 (95% CI 1.1.3, 2.67)), diarrhoea (OR 2.2 (95% CI 1.38, 3.46)), any stool urgency (OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.04, 2.47)), nocturnal urgency (OR 2.57 (95% CI 1.33, 4.98)), and incomplete rectal evacuation (OR 1.64 (95% CI 1.09, 2.47)), adjusting for age, sex, and education. When subjects with oesophagitis and peptic ulcer were excluded, only diarrhoea, incomplete evacuation, and vomiting were significantly associated with obesity. The association between GORS and obesity remained significant adjusting for medication use (OR 1.9 (95% CI 1.3, 3.0)). Conclusions: GORS is associated with obesity; this appears to be explained by increased upper endoscopy findings in obesity

An evaluation study of national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free circulation of judgments and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of consumers under EU consumer law

In response to the tender specifications the study consists of two parts. The first examines whether divergences in national procedural laws and practices constitute obstacles to mutual trust and, in the affirmative, identifies the locus and the scale of such obstacles; it thereby facilitates the identification of the areas in which mutual trust needs to be further enhanced in line with the European Council Conclusions of 26/27 June 2014. In addition, the study addresses possible obstacles to legal certainty when businesses and citizens engage in cross-border litigation. The second strand of the study evaluates whether and to what extent national procedural laws and practices ensure the effective procedural protection of EU consumers. Both strands of the study investigate the legal and the practical situations in the civil procedural laws of the 28 EU Member States

Collective Redress: A Breakthrough or a Damp Sqibb?

In June 2013, the European Commission issued its long-awaited policy on collective redress. The proposal is in fact about collective actions and omits a holistic assessment of other options for redress. The proposal is a Recommendation not a proposed legislation. A related proposed Directive on competition damages does not mention collective actions. The proposed framework is not a model as too many aspects remain subject to national rules and contexts. Empirical evidence from collective actions in Member States suggests that this does not herald a new dawn for litigation or redress, although it may fuel more litigation in some Member States and thus forum shopping. In threatening to introduce legislation unless Member States introduce collective actions for all types of claim, the Commission opposes the majority of the Council and seems to have overplayed its hand. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York