4.3 Article

Recurrent abdominal pain: Symptom subtypes based on the Rome II criteria for pediatric functional gastrointestinal disorders

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005176-200402000-00016

关键词

functional gastrointestinal disorders; irritable bowel syndrome; recurrent abdominal

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD23264] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) is a common childhood complaint rarely associated with organic disease. Recently, the Pediatric Rome Criteria were developed to standardize the classification of pediatric functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) using a symptom-based approach. The authors tested the hypothesis that most patients with childhood RAP could be classified into one or more of the symptom subtypes defined by the Pediatric Rome Criteria. Methods: Using a prospective longitudinal design, new patients with RAP (n = 114) were studied at a tertiary care children's medical center. Before the medical evaluation, parents completed a questionnaire about their child, assessing symptoms defined by the Pediatric Rome Criteria. Results: Of the 107 children for whom medical evaluation revealed no organic etiology for pain, 73% had symptom pro-files consistent with the Pediatric Rome Criteria for one of the FGIDs associated with abdominal pain (irritable bowel syndrome, 44.9%; functional dyspepsia, 15.9%; functional abdominal pain, 7.5%; abdominal migraine, 4.7%) Conclusions: This study provides the first systematic empirical evidence that RAP, originally defined by Apley, includes children whose symptoms are consistent with the symptom criteria for several FGIDs defined by the Rome criteria. The pediatric Rome criteria may be useful in clinical research to (1) describe the symptom characteristics of research participants who meet Apley's broad criteria for RAP, and (2) select patients with particular symptom profiles for investigation of potential biologic and psychosocial mechanisms associated with pediatric FGIDs.

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

4.3
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