4.7 Article

Inability of the Rome III Criteria to Distinguish Functional Constipation From Constipation-Subtype Irritable Bowel Syndrome

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 105, 期 10, 页码 2228-2234

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2010.200

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R24 DK067674, R01 DK031369]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: The Rome III classification system treats functional constipation (FC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) as distinct disorders, but this distinction appears artificial, and the same drugs are used to treat both. This study's hypothesis is that FC and IBS-C defined by Rome III are not distinct entities. METHODS: In all, 1,100 adults with a primary care visit for constipation and 1,700 age-and gender-matched controls from a health maintenance organization completed surveys 12 months apart; 66.2% returned the first questionnaire. Rome III criteria identified 231 with FC and 201 with IBS-C. The second survey was completed by 195 of the FC and 141 of the IBS-C cohorts. Both surveys assessed the severity of constipation and IBS, quality of life (QOL), and psychological distress. RESULTS: (i) Overlap: if the Rome III requirement that patients meeting criteria for IBS cannot be diagnosed with FC is suspended, 89.5% of IBS-C cases meet criteria for FC and 43.8% of FC patients fulfill criteria for IBS-C. (ii) No qualitative differences between FC and IBS-C: 44.8% of FC patients report abdominal pain, and paradoxically IBS-C patients have more constipation symptoms than FC. (iii) Switching between diagnoses: by 12 months, 1/3 of FC transition to IBS-C and 1/3 of IBS-C change to FC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified by Rome III criteria for FC and IBS-C are not distinct groups. Revisions to the Rome III criteria, possibly including incorporation of physiological tests of transit and pelvic floor function, are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据