Validation of Rome II criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders by factor analysis of symptoms in Asian patient sample

BACKGROUND: It has been unclear as to whether the Rome II criteria could be applied to patients in the Asia region with functional gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. The aim of the present study was to determine if symptoms of Asian patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders formed groups which corresponded to the Rome II diagnostic criteria. METHODS: A modified English version of Talley's bowel disease questionnaire was developed in collaboration with various research teams in accordance with the Rome II criteria. This instrument was translated into the local languages of the following nine Asian regions: China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. From September to December 2001, newly enrolled outpatients attending 14 GI or medical clinics in these regions were invited to complete the questionnaire. From these respondents, patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders fulfilling the '12 weeks out of 12 months' criteria were separated for further analysis. Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to identify symptom clusters or factors. These factors were compared with the existing classification of functional GI diseases derived from the Rome II criteria. RESULTS: Factor analysis of symptoms from 1012 functional GI patients supported the Rome II classification of the following groups of functional GI disorders: diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, functional constipation, functional dyspepsia, functional abdominal pain syndrome, functional heartburn, and functional vomiting. Functional diarrhea was combined with functional anorectal disorders, and globus merged with functional dysphagia into one factor. Some of the functional dyspepsia, abdominal bloating and belching symptoms were loaded into one factor. CONCLUSIONS: Factor analysis of symptoms from a sample of Asian patients with functional GI disorders partially supported the use of the Rome II classification.     

Gastrointestinal symptoms and subjects cluster into distinct upper and lower groupings in the community: a four nations study

OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether distinct functional GI (GI) symptom groupings occur in the general population and whether these are similar across different cultures. Although symptom-based diagnostic criteria have been developed for upper and lower GI syndromes (the Rome criteria), the classification is controversial. We aimed to identify whether independent symptom-based subgroups exist in four countries consistent with the Rome criteria. METHODS: Random samples of the community were mailed a validated questionnaire based on the Bowel Disease Questionnaire in Rochester, MN (n = 2,220), in Sydney, Australia (n = 1,135), and in Essen, Germany (n = 500). A different validated questionnaire was mailed to a random sample in Osthammar, Sweden (n = 1,517). Only the common questions (n = 22) were used in the current analysis, and these were essentially identical in wording. The underlying structure of the item responses was examined using factor analysis. Initial factors were extracted using principal components analysis and then rotated using Varimax. Clustering of symptoms among individuals was examined though cluster analysis, using the factors as the basis for clustering. RESULTS: Response rates varied from 64% to 80%; responders and nonresponders were similar sociodemographically. All four studies yielded similar factor structures. All countries reported symptom groupings consistent with the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), dyspepsia and/or gastroesophageal reflux, and constipation; all except Sweden also had a diarrhea group. The cluster analysis yielded slightly more disparate results but a healthy group was present in all populations. All four populations had an IBS and/or bowel dysfunction cluster identified; a gastroesophageal reflux cluster was also present in all countries. CONCLUSIONS: The similarity of factor and cluster structures found in these four nations suggest that patterns of GI symptoms and groupings of individuals are similar across these Western cultures. These results are consistent with the current international Rome classification for separate upper and lower functional GI disorders.     

Symptom clustering in subjects with and without diabetes mellitus: a population-based study of 15,000 Australian adults

OBJECTIVES: GI symptoms form distinct symptom clusters in community samples when factor and cluster analysis is applied. However, this has not been studied in diabetic populations, despite clear evidence that GI complaints are common in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). This study aimed to describe clustering of GI symptoms among individuals with and without diabetes mellitus, and to describe associations of symptom clustering in diabetes mellitus, with self-reported glucose control and treatment. METHODS: A large population survey (n = 15,000) was used to identify a cohort with diabetes mellitus. Items assessing therapy and quality of glycemic control were included, as were those assessing 16 common GI symptoms. Latent GI symptom factors were extracted by factor analysis and used in a k-means cluster analysis. The latter serves to group individuals according to commonalities in symptom profiles. The association of cluster group membership to glycemic control and diabetic treatment was described by logistic regression. RESULTS: Factor analysis identified four latent symptom factors, which accounted for 69.3% of the total variance. These were labeled Upper GI/Dysmotility, Diarrhea, Constipation, and Vomiting/Nausea. The k-means analysis produced a five-cluster solution, which included a "health" group and four "diseased" groups, each identified by a predominant symptom: Upper GI/Dysmotility symptoms, Nausea/Vomiting, Diarrhea, and Constipation. After adjustment for age and gender, poor glycemic control predicted membership in all disease clusters, when compared separately with the health group. Oral hypoglycemic drugs predicted membership in the Nausea/Vomiting cluster (OR = 5.13) when used alone, and membership in the Nausea/Vomiting (OR = 10.12) and Upper GI/Dysmotility cluster (OR = 10.12) when used in combination with insulin. CONCLUSION: Diabetes can be grouped according to common GI symptoms. Glycemic control and treatment for DM predict membership of symptom clusters.     

Splitting irritable bowel syndrome: from original Rome to Rome II criteria

OBJECTIVES: Diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and other functional bowel disorders (FBD) is based on symptom evaluation. Clinical criteria have changed over time, yielding different proportions of subjects fulfilling diagnostic requirements. According to new diagnostic criteria (Rome II), subjects considered some years ago to have IBS no longer do so. The aim of this article is to evaluate how patients diagnosed as having IBS according to original Rome criteria have been split, and to which clinical diagnosis they belong today. METHODS: Two hundred and eleven subjects meeting original Rome IBS diagnostic criteria were studied: 65 also met Rome II criteria while 146 did not. Subjects were extracted from an epidemiological survey, using home-based personal interviews, on 2000 subjects randomly selected as representative of the Spanish population. Clinical complaints, personal well-being, resource utilization, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were compared. RESULTS: Of the subjects meeting original Rome but not Rome II criteria, the present diagnosis should be: 40%"minor" IBS (IBS symptoms of less than 12 wk duration), 37% functional constipation, 12% alternating bowel habit, 7% functional diarrhea, 3% functional abdominal bloating, and 1% unspecified functional bowel disorder (FBD). Thus, 52 subjects (36%) should not be diagnosed with IBS because they really had other FBD, 59 (40%) because of symptoms consistent with IBD diagnosis but not the required duration or frequency, and 35 (24%) because of symptoms consistent with some other FBD diagnosis but not meeting the required duration. Clinical complaints, personal well-being, resource utilization, and HRQOL were more severely affected in IBS than in other FBD as a group, and in "major" rather than in "minor" forms. CONCLUSIONS: Many subjects meeting original Rome criteria for IBS do not meet Rome II criteria: approximately one quarter of subjects do not have sufficient symptom duration or frequency to be diagnosed with IBS and almost half are now considered as having other ("major" or "minor") FBD.     

Symptom patterns and relative distribution of functional bowel disorders in 1,023 gastroenterology patients in Iran

Background and aims There are scanty data on functional bowel disorder (FBD) patterns in Iran. This first-time study tried to provide preliminary data on relative distribution of different types of FBD and their symptom patterns in Iranian patients.Methods A consecutive sample of 1,023 patients in an outpatient gastroenterology clinic in central Tehran was interviewed using two questionnaires based on Rome II criteria from December 2004 to May 2005 to detect FBD patients.Results Of 1,023 gastroenterology patients, 410 met Rome II criteria for FBD; functional constipation, 115 (28%); irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), 110 (27%) [IBS-C, 29%; IBS-D, 11%; IBS-A, 60%]; functional bloating, 102 (25%); unspecified FBD, 76 (18%); and functional diarrhea, 7 (2%). FBD had no association with age or level of education, while it was more frequent in women (P=0.001). FBD was also more frequent among those with a history of abdominal/pelvic surgery (P=0.021). IBS patients had a lower mean of age compared with non-FBD group, while patients with constipation were older (Mann–Whitney U test, P=0.006). Constipation-related symptoms were the most frequent symptoms among IBS patients. Constipation (<3 defecations/week) was also the most frequent change in bowel habit in bloating and unspecified FBD patients. Fourteen percent of IBS consulters and 8.7% of functional constipation consulters met Rome II criteria for dyspepsia (disregarding the ruling out of upper gastrointestinal organic disease). Only 20% of patients with functional constipation were consulters.Conclusions Population-based studies at provincial levels are essential to clarify FBD patterns in each provincial district in the country.     

Empiric clustering of dyspepsia into symptom subgroups: a population-based study

BACKGROUND: Different definitions of dyspepsia are applied by researchers yet measurement of the influence of these on prevalence estimates is uncertain. Despite continued debate regarding dyspepsia subgroups, few studies have used a data-drive approach to assess the existence and relevance of symptom clusters. We aimed to address both these issues. METHODS: A random population sample (n = 2300) identified in New South Wales. Prevalence estimates of dyspepsia were calculated by applying four standardized dyspepsia definitions. Principal components analyses, using firstly the presence/absence of symptoms and then secondly severity of symptoms, were undertaken to determine if symptom factors existed. RESULTS: Prevalence estimates ranged from 11% to 36%. Similar prevalence rates for men and women were observed for all definitions except Rome II. Over one-third of respondents nominated heartburn or epigastric pain as their most bothersome symptom. However, 22% of respondents were unable to answer this question. The principal components analysis produced four symptom factors: a nausea factor, dysmotility-like dyspepsia (early satiety and fullness), ulcer-like (epigastric pain and bloating) and reflux-like (heartburn and acid regurgitation). However, the factors accounted for less than 50% of the variance. Similar factors were identified in men and women for dysmotility-like and reflux-like dyspepsia. Use of presence/absence or severity of symptoms made little difference to the symptom factors produced or the amount of variance explained. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of dyspepsia depends on the definition applied. While there is some empirical evidence of symptom subgroups, they appear to be of little clinical utility.     

Empiric Clustering of Dyspepsia into Symptom Subgroups: a Population-based Study

Background: Different definitions of dyspepsia are applied by researchers yet measurement of the influence of these on prevalence estimates is uncertain. Despite continued debate regarding dyspepsia subgroups, few studies have used a data-drive approach to assess the existence and relevance of symptom clusters. We aimed to address both these issues. Methods: A random population sample ( n = 2300) identified in New South Wales. Prevalence estimates of dyspepsia were calculated by applying four standardized dyspepsia definitions. Principal components analyses, using firstly the presence/absence of symptoms and then secondly severity of symptoms, were undertaken to determine if symptom factors existed. Results: Prevalence estimates ranged from 11% to 36%. Similar prevalence rates for men and women were observed for all definitions except Rome II. Over one-third of respondents nominated heartburn or epigastric pain as their most bothersome symptom. However, 22% of respondents were unable to answer this question. The principal components analysis produced four symptom factors: a nausea factor, dysmotility-like dyspepsia (early satiety and fullness), ulcer-like (epigastric pain and bloating) and reflux-like (heartburn and acid regurgitation). However, the factors accounted for less than 50% of the variance. Similar factors were identified in men and women for dysmotility-like and reflux-like dyspepsia. Use of presence/absence or severity of symptoms made little difference to the symptom factors produced or the amount of variance explained. Conclusions: The prevalence of dyspepsia depends on the definition applied. While there is some empirical evidence of symptom subgroups, they appear to be of little clinical utility.     

Correlation of symptom criteria with perception thresholds during rectosigmoid distension in irritable bowel syndrome patients

OBJECTIVE: Due to a lack of reliable biological markers, the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is based on symptom criteria. The possible physiological correlates of these criteria are not known. Our aims were to identify correlations of currently used IBS symptom criteria with distinct alterations in visceral perception. METHODS: Forty-two IBS patients (51% women) with a mean age of 39.5+/-1.4 yr, were included; 64% of patients were recruited from advertisement and 36% were clinic referrals. Patients completed a bowel symptom questionnaire, which included the Rome criteria and symptom severity ratings. Rectal discomfort thresholds were evaluated in all patients and in 19 controls, using a nonbiased tracking protocol consisting of phasic rectal balloon distensions before (PreTh) and after (PostTh) repetitive, high-pressure sigmoid distensions. We assessed the effect of each Rome criteria and symptom severity on PreTh and PostTh. RESULTS: IBS symptom severity was reported as moderate in 38.1% and as severe in 61.9% of patients. Overall, lower thresholds were observed in IBS patients than in controls (PreTh: 28.2+/-1.7 vs. 36.3+/-2.8 mm Hg, p<0.05; PostTh: 25.3+/-1.5 vs. 34.2+/-2.7 mm Hg, p<0.01). When assessing the effect of Rome criteria on rectal thresholds, we found that patients with hard/lumpy stools had lower thresholds than those without them, whereas patients with loose watery stools had higher thresholds than those who lacked them (both p<0.05). The lowering of rectal discomfort thresholds after sigmoid stimulation was observed regardless of the presence or absence of any Rome criteria or symptom severity. CONCLUSION: Although a decrease in rectal discomfort thresholds after sigmoid stimulation is seen in IBS regardless of specific symptoms, baseline and postsigmoid stimulation thresholds are lower in IBS patients with constipation-related symptoms.     

罗马Ⅲ和罗马Ⅱ标准诊断肠易激综合征的比较

目的比较罗马Ⅲ和罗马Ⅱ标准诊断肠易激综合征（IBS）的符合情况和患者的临床特点。方法面访式问卷调查消化内科门诊连续就诊病例3014例。结果（1）符合罗马Ⅲ标准的IBS患者480例,检出率15．9％（480／3014）。其中便秘型IBS（C—IBS）27．9％（134／480）,腹泻型IBS（D-IBS）32．7％（157／480）,混合型IBS（M-IBS）6．7％（32／480）,未分型IBS（U-IBS）32．7％（157／480）,检出率在各年龄组和性别间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。符合罗马Ⅱ标准的IBS患者558例,检出率为18．5％（558／3014）,其中便秘主导型33．2％（185／558）,腹泻主导型38．2％（213／558）,其他占28．7％（160／558）,女性检出率显著高于男性（P=0．002）,各年龄组间检出率差异无统计学意义。罗马Ⅲ标准对IBS的检出率低于罗马Ⅱ标准（P=0．008）,但两者诊断IBS有较好的一致性。（2）与罗马Ⅱ标准的IBS患者相比,罗马Ⅲ标准的IBS患者腹部症状（P=0．04）和异常排便习惯（P〈0．001）均较严重,最近3个月患者的就诊率也较高（26．5％、35．6％,P=0．02）。（3）罗马Ⅲ标准各亚型的IBS患者的异常排便习惯严重程度差异有统计学意义（C-IBS、M-IBS〉D-IBS〉U-IBS,P〈0．005）,但腹部症状严重程度和患者最近3个月的就诊率之间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论罗马Ⅲ和罗马Ⅱ标准诊断IBS具有较好的一致性。与罗马Ⅱ标准相比,罗马Ⅲ标准对IBS的检出率较低,症状频率定义和分型方法相对简单,在临床中更实用,符合其诊断标准的患者症状相对较重,就诊率较高,也较适合于临床试验。     

Prevalence and socioeconomic impact of upper gastrointestinal disorders in the United States: results of the US Upper Gastrointestinal Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study examined the prevalence of upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and symptom groupings and determined impact on disability days in a nationally representative US sample. METHODS: A telephone survey of 21,128 adults was conducted including questions about the presence of upper GI symptoms during the past 3 months. Respondents were categorized as symptomatic (ie, reported GI symptoms once per month) or asymptomatic. The survey included questions about missed work, leisure activity, or household activity days. Symptom groupings were identified by using factor analysis, and cluster analysis was used to assign respondents into distinct groups on the basis of these symptom groupings. RESULTS: The prevalence of an average of 1 or more upper GI symptoms during the past 3 months was 44.9%. The most common symptoms experienced during the past 3 months were early satiety, heartburn, and postprandial fullness. Factor analysis identified 4 symptom groupings: (1) heartburn/regurgitation; (2) nausea/vomiting; (3) bloating/abdominal pain; and (4) early satiety/loss of appetite. Five respondent clusters were identified; the largest clusters were primarily early satiety/fullness (44%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms (28%). Two small clusters reflected nausea and vomiting (7%) and a heterogeneous symptom profile (4%). Symptomatic respondents reported significantly more missed work, leisure, and household activity days than asymptomatic respondents (all P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Factor analysis separated GI symptoms into groupings reflecting gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia: early satiety, postprandial fullness, and loss of appetite; bloating and abdominal pain/discomfort; and nausea and vomiting. These upper GI symptoms were associated with significant loss of work and activity days.     

Rome I criteria are more sensitive than Rome II for diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome in Indian patients.

AIM: To assess the utility and efficacy of Rome I and Rome II criteria for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in India. METHODS: Patients referred with a diagnosis of IBS by general practitioners answered a questionnaire about clinical features, including those listed in the Rome I and Rome II criteria. All patients underwent investigations to determine the cause of their symptoms. Sensitivity, positive predictive value and percent agreement of final diagnosis with Rome I and II criteria were calculated. RESULTS: Among 138 patients studied, 6 patients had organic disease . Amongst 132 patients with functional bowel disease, Rome I criteria diagnosed more patients as IBS than Rome II criteria (110 [83.3%] vs. 41 [31.1%]); 36 patients fulfilled both the criteria. Of the patients positive by Rome I, 32.7% fulfilled Rome II criteria, and of those diagnosed by Rome II criteria, 87.8% fulfilled Rome I criteria. Seventeen patients did not fulfill either Rome I or Rome II criteria, and were classified as functional abdominal bloating, functional diarrhea or functional constipation. CONCLUSION: Rome I criteria are more sensitive than Rome II criteria for the diagnosis of IBS in the Indian population.     

How useful are the Rome II criteria for identification of upper gastrointestinal disorders in general practice?

OBJECTIVE: The Rome II criteria are a classification of functional gastrointestinal disorders. It is not known whether they can be used as a diagnostic tool. This study evaluates the agreement between GPs and the Rome II criteria on the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disorders. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with abdominal complaints were included in this pragmatic cross-sectional study. All patients answered a questionnaire based on the Rome II criteria. The diagnoses based on these criteria were compared with the GPs' diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 549 consecutively selected patients were included in the study. The agreement between GPs and the Rome II criteria was 65%, kappa 0.34 (CI 0.27-0.41). The agreement was lower when dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux/functional heartburn were evaluated separately. The positive and negative predictive values of the Rome II criteria varied between 29-58% and 82-90%, respectively, in various groups of patients with confirmed diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: The GPs' diagnoses differed from those based entirely on the Rome II criteria. Strict adherence to the criteria will result in other diseases being disregarded. The diagnoses of upper gastrointestinal disorders should be based on all available information and the Rome II criteria used only as an additional aid to improve the precise classification of functional disorders.     

Different segmental transit times in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and “normal” colonic transit time: is there a correlation with symptoms?

Background The Rome criteria serve as gold standard for establishing a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but only represent a cluster of symptoms. On the other hand, measurement of colonic transit time (CTT) with radiopaque markers is a solid and more objective method to quantify functional abnormalities. The goal of this study was to investigate whether the IBS symptoms, as defined in the Rome II criteria, correspond to objective physiological parameters, i.e. CCTs. Methods The study enrolled 148 healthy control subjects and 1385 consecutive IBS patients. Transit times were measured for the whole rectocolon (overall CTT) and for 3 segments (right colon, left colon, rectosigmoid area); segmental distribution of markers and diffusion coefficients were also assessed. In order to analyze homogeneous groups, we restricted analysis to subjects with “normal” CTT (≤70 hours). Results Six hundred forty four IBS patients (46%) and 14 control subjects (9%) had CTT >70 h and were eliminated. In subjects with CTT ≤70 h, CTT did not follow a normal (Gaussian) distribution. We identified 3 different CTT clusters in healthy controls and 4 clusters in IBS patients. Even if CTT was not significantly different between clusters, each cluster was characterized by a specific pattern of segmental colonic transit. There was a marked gender difference: women had longer overall CTT values than men, both in control and IBS patient groups (p<0.001). However, female IBS patients had significantly shorter colorectal transit times than female controls (p<0.001), as well as faster transit than in men through the left colon and rectosigmoid area. There were no significant differences in transit time between male IBS patients and male controls with the exception of a faster rectal transit in IBS patients (p<0.01). There was no association between segmental colonic transit values and sign or symptoms comprising the Rome II criteria. Conclusions In subjects with CTT ≤70 h, CTT does not follow a normal distribution but is clustered in subgroups that can be distinguished only by measuring segmental colonic transit. Within these subgroups, there is a marked difference in transit times between IBS patients and normal subjects, suggesting that IBS patients with “normal” CTT are not “normal”. The Rome II criteria do not reflect differences in segmental transit times in IBS patients with “normal” CTT. We therefore propose to evaluate segmental transit times in IBS patients with “normal” CTT, before and after treatment, in order to correctly interpretate variations in signs and symptoms. These findings have important implications in evaluating the effect of drugs on bowel function and should help define better inclusion criteria for studies evaluating new drugs for the treatment of IBS. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Cluster analysis of symptoms and health seeking behaviour differentiates subgroups of patients with severe irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a heterogeneous condition which is diagnosed according to specific bowel symptom clusters. The aim of the present study was to identify subgroups of IBS subjects using measures of rectal sensitivity and psychological symptoms, in addition to bowel symptoms. Such groupings, which cross conventional diagnostic approaches, may provide greater understanding of the pathogenesis of the condition and its treatment. METHOD: A K means cluster analysis was used to group 107 clinic patients with IBS according to physiological, physical, and psychological parameters. All patients had severe IBS and had failed to respond to usual medical treatment. Twenty nine patients had diarrhoea predominant IBS, 26 constipation predominant, and 52 had an alternating bowel habit. RESULTS: The clusters were most clearly delineated by two variables: "rectal perceptual threshold (volume)" and "number of doctor visits". Three subgroups were formed. Group I comprised patients with low distension thresholds and high rates of psychiatric morbidity, doctor consultations, interpersonal problems, and sexual abuse. Group II also had low distension thresholds but low rates of childhood abuse and moderate levels of psychiatric disorders. Group III had high distension thresholds, constipation or alternating IBS, and low rates of medical consultations and sexual abuse. CONCLUSION: The marked differences across the three groups suggest that each may have a different pathogenesis and respond to different treatment approaches. Inclusion of psychosocial factors in the analysis enabled more clinically meaningful groups to be identified than those traditionally determined by bowel symptoms alone or rectal threshold.     

功能性肠病与器质性肠病临床特点比较

背景：熟悉功能性肠病（FBDs）的临床特点并了解罗马Ⅲ标准在诊断中的实用性,对其临床诊断具有重要指导意义。目的：比较FBDs与器质性肠病（OBDs）的临床特点,为临床鉴别两种疾病提供依据。方法：对2007年5月8日～10月31日于武汉协和医院消化科行结肠镜检查者进行连续调查,内容包括患者一般情况、下消化道症状、报警症状、内镜检查结果等。FBDs的诊断采用罗马Ⅲ标准并排除报警症状。结果：FBDs为女性多见而OBDs为男性多见（P〈0．05）。OBDs组年龄显著高于FBDs组（P〈0．01）,45岁以上的患者OBDs所占比例逐渐上升。FBDs组病程显著长于OBDs组（P〈0．05）。FBDs组腹痛、腹胀、腹部不适、腹泻、便秘、腹泻便秘交替、排便窘迫感、排便不尽感、排便费力症状的发生率显著高于OBDs组（P〈0．05）。OBDs组报警症状中以便血最为多见（20．9％）。507例无报警症状且符合FBDs罗马Ⅲ标准的患者中,131例（25．8％）结肠镜检查发现异常,最终诊断为OBDs,腹泻是这部分患者最常见的症状,发生率为58．8％。结论：FBDs与OBDs在性别构成、年龄、病程和临床症状方面均有明显差异。以罗马Ⅲ标准初步诊断FBDs具有临床实用性．但必要时应行结肠镜检查。     

Symptomatic overlap between irritable bowel syndrome and microscopic colitis

BACKGROUND: Microscopic colitis is diagnosed on the basis of histologic criteria, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is diagnosed by symptom-based criteria. There has been little investigation into the symptomatic overlap between these conditions. Our aim was to assess the prevalence of symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome in a population-based cohort of patients with microscopic colitis. METHODS: The Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP), a medical records linkage system providing all health care data for the defined population of Olmsted County, Minnesota, was used to identify all county residents with a diagnosis of microscopic colitis between 1985 and 2001. The medical records of these individuals were reviewed to ascertain symptoms consistent with Rome, Rome II, and Manning criteria for irritable bowel syndrome. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one cases of microscopic colitis were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (range, 24-95); 71% were women. Sixty-nine (53%) and 73 (56%) met Rome and Rome II criteria for irritable bowel syndrome, respectively. Fifty-four (41%) had three or more Manning criteria. Forty-three (33%) had previously been diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cohort of histologically confirmed microscopic colitis, approximately one-half met symptom-based criteria for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome. The clinical symptom-based criteria for irritable bowel syndrome are not specific enough to rule out the diagnosis of microscopic colitis. Therefore, patients with suspected diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome should undergo biopsies of the colon to investigate for possible microscopic colitis if symptoms are not well controlled by antidiarrheal therapy.     

Utility of the Rome I and Rome II criteria for irritable bowel syndrome in U.S. women

OBJECTIVES: Using interview data from a large, community-based sample of American women, we assessed the lifetime prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) using questions consistent with the Rome II criteria, determined the sensitivity of Rome I and II in women diagnosed with IBS by their community physician, and identified whether there are differences in the patients identified by Rome I versus II. METHODS: A geographically diverse national probability sample of women diagnosed with IBS was identified and interviewed by telephone screening of a national, random digit dialing sample of households. A parallel national survey of adult females was conducted to determine the lifetime prevalence of IBS in U.S. women. Screening and interviews were conducted by experienced, female interviewers. IBS was defined by variations on the Rome I/II criteria. RESULTS: In the national community sample, lifetime IBS prevalence was 5.4% using Rome II. Full interviews were completed in 1,014 IBS patients. In the IBS sample, Rome I was significantly more sensitive than Rome II (84% vs 49%, p < 0.001). There was 47% agreement between Rome I and II. Of patients with IBS by Rome I, 58% met Rome II. Only 17.7% did not meet either Rome I or II. CONCLUSIONS: Rome I was more sensitive than Rome II in this community sample of female IBS patients. Rome I/II do not necessarily identify the same IBS patients. These findings have important implications for clinical research in IBS patients and raise questions about whether the Rome II criteria are sensitive enough to be useful in clinical practice.     

Irritable bowel syndrome according to varying diagnostic criteria: are the new Rome II criteria unnecessarily restrictive for research and practice?

OBJECTIVES: It has been suggested that the variation in the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) may be due to the application of different diagnostic criteria. New criteria for IBS have been proposed (Rome II). It is unknown whether persons meeting different criteria for IBS have similar psychological and symptom features. The aim of this study was to measure the prevalence of IBS according to Manning and Rome definitions of IBS and to evaluate the clinical and psychological differences between diagnostic categories. METHODS: A total of 4500 randomly selected subjects, with equal numbers of male and female subjects aged > or = 18 yr and representative of the Australian population, took part in this study. Subjects were mailed a questionnaire (response rate, 72%). Characteristics measured were gastrointestinal symptoms over the past 12 months, neuroticism and extroversion (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire), anxiety and depression (Delusions-Symptoms-States Inventory), mental and physical functioning (SF-12), and somatic distress (Sphere). RESULTS: The prevalence for IBS according to Manning, Rome I, and Rome II was 13.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.5-5.1%), 4.4% (CI 6.0-7.8%), and 6.9% (CI 12.3-14.8%), respectively [corrected]. Only 12 persons with Rome I did not also meet Rome II criteria; 196 persons with Manning criteria did not meet Rome II cut-offs. Having IBS regardless of which criteria were used was significantly associated with psychological morbidity, but psychological factors were not important in discriminating between diagnostic categories. However, pain and bowel habit severity independently discriminated between diagnostic groups. CONCLUSIONS: IBS is a relatively common disorder in the community. The new Rome II criteria may be unnecessarily restrictive in practice.     

Epidemiology of the functional gastrointestinal disorders diagnosed according to Rome II criteria: an Australian population-based study

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies of the prevalence of all functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) using the Rome II criteria are lacking. It is also not certain whether subjects who meet the Rome II criteria for an FGID are different in terms of demographic and psychological characteristics from those subjects meeting exclusively the more restrictive Rome I criteria. AIM: To determine whether using the more restrictive Rome I criteria would result in a more biologically determined group of FGID than when the Rome II is applied. METHODS: Subjects included individuals aged 18 years and older (n = 1,225) from the Penrith population who were initially surveyed with the Penrith District Health Survey in 1997. Subjects were sent a self-report questionnaire that contained items on gastrointestinal symptoms applying the Rome II criteria. Subjects were also assessed on psychological and personality factors and on physical and mental functioning. RESULTS: A total of 36.1% (n = 275) of respondents was diagnosed with an FGID according to Rome II criteria. The five most prevalent FGID were functional heartburn (10.4%), irritable bowel syndrome (8.9%), functional incontinence (7.6%), proctalgia fugax (6.5%) and functional chest pain (5.1%). Subjects meeting Rome II only criteria for FGID scored significantly higher on measures of psychological caseness and emotionality than Rome I only subjects, and these were independently associated with meeting Rome I only versus Rome II only criteria for FGID. CONCLUSION: The Rome II criteria FGID are common and do not appear to identify a vastly different group of FGID sufferers compared with the earlier Rome I criteria.     

The Rome III Classification of dyspepsia: will it help research?

A major change in the Rome III criteria relates to the condition previously called functional dyspepsia (FD). Rome I and Rome II defined FD as pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen without a definite structural or biochemical explanation. The condition was further sub-classified into ulcer-like or dysmotility-like dyspepsia. However, subsequent studies failed to show that single-symptoms are present in the vast majority of patients, and most symptoms failed to correlate with any physiological abnormalities. In Rome III, FD as a broad category was no longer considered useful in terms of research, but rather was defined by two new symptom entities, namely epigastric pain (epigastric pain syndrome) and meal-related symptoms (postprandial distress syndrome). We predict these changes will stimulate new research into the underlying pathophysiological disturbances, as well as impact the diagnosis and treatment of dyspepsia; the classification should advance the field, and we review the challenges ahead.