4.5 Article

Prevalence and incidence of microscopic colitis in patients with diarrhoea of unknown aetiology in a region in central Spain

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 44, 期 5, 页码 384-388

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2011.12.017

关键词

Chronic diarrhoea; Irritable bowel syndrome; Microscopic colitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Often previously overlooked, microscopic colitis, including collagenous colitis and lymphocytic colitis, has now emerged as a common cause of chronic diarrhoea. Aims: To evaluate the prevalence and incidence of microscopic colitis in patients with diarrhoea of unknown aetiology. Methods: 271 consecutive patients who were referred to the General Hospital of Tomelloso from April 2008 to December 2010 for diarrhoea of unknown aetiology underwent a full colonoscopy to obtain biopsy samples to diagnose microscopic colitis on the basis of commonly accepted histological criteria. All patients were classified according to the Roma III criteria for diarrhoea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome. Results: In 234/271 consecutive patients with normal endoscopic appearance we observed 32/234 patients with microscopic colitis (30 lymphocytic colitis and 2 collagenous colitis) with a prevalence of microscopic colitis of 48 cases/100,000 inhabitants (95%Cl: 30-65) and mean annual standardised incidence of 18 cases/100,000 inhabitants (95%Cl: 16.0-20.0). Analysing only the patients that met the Roma III criteria (84/271), we observed 10.7% microscopic colitis diagnosis, with higher risk in the presence of autoimmune disease, seronegative celiac disease and intake of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Conclusions: Microscopic colitis was found in 13.7% of patients with chronic diarrhoea. Microscopic colitis is present in a relevant proportion of symptomatic patients meeting diagnostic criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (10.7%). (C) 2011 Editrice Gastroenterologica ltaliana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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