4.3 Article

Pelvic floor dysfunction predicts abdominal bloating and distension in eating disorder patients

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 6, Pages 625-631

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2012.661762

Keywords

abdominal bloating; abdominal distension; eating disorder; gastrointestinal symptoms; irritable bowel syndrome; pelvic floor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Little is known about the symptoms of abdominal bloating and distension in women with eating disorders (EDs). This study aimed to explore the prevalence and predictors of these symptoms in patients with EDs, by examining correlations with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) including pelvic floor symptoms and other clinical features. Material and methods. 184 ED inpatients, 16-55 years, completed on admission to hospital the ROME II symptom questionnaire, additional questions about abdominal bloating and distension, and psychological questionnaires. Prediction of abdominal bloating and distension was modeled using logistic regression analyses with individual FGIDs, psychological variables, ED type, and clinical features as the potential predictors. Results. Bloating (78%) was more common than distension (58%) in each ED type. In the final multivariate models, after controlling for BMI, the number of Rome II symptoms of pelvic floor dyssynergia (i.e., having to strain to pass a stool, feeling unable to empty the rectum, and having difficulty relaxing to evacuate the stool) was a significant predictor of both abdominal distension (p < 0.001) and bloating (p < 0.005). The presence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS, 46%) was a significant predictor of bloating (p < 0.001) but not distension. Conclusions. Symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction, but not IBS, appear to be especially important in the genesis of abdominal distension in patients with ED.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available