Value of different diagnostic criteria for the irritable bowel syndrome among men and women

INTRODUCTION: Whether the diagnostic value of various criteria used to diagnose irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) differ by sex is controversial. AIM: To evaluate the sex-specific value of varying IBS criteria and sex-specific symptoms in patients with IBS and organic disease. METHODS: Outpatients of a gastroenterology practice (64% female) completed a validated questionnaire and received a complete diagnostic work-up as required. Questionnaire data were collected prospectively and audited retrospectively. RESULTS: Overall 233 (male 21%) had a final diagnosis of IBS; 305 (male 47%) received a diagnosis of organic disease. Constipation and bloating were more frequent in females independent whether they had IBS or organic disease. The sensitivity of the diagnostic criteria in male patients was between 82% and 88%, when Manning (3 or more), Rome I or Rome II criteria were applied, whereas the specificity was 65% to 71%. In females, sensitivity was 62% to 64% and specificity was between 66% and 70%. Although all the diagnostic IBS criteria had higher positive predictive values in females versus males, the negative predictive values were lower in females. CONCLUSIONS: Current criteria for IBS differ modestly between sexes, probably reflecting variable prevalence of the disease rather than a sex-specific presentation of IBS.     

Irritable bowel syndrome prevalence varies enormously depending on the employed diagnostic criteria: comparison of Rome II versus previous criteria in a general population.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) prevalence estimates are essential for measuring the importance of the problem and the burden of the illness. However, IBS diagnosis is based on clinical criteria which have changed over time. The aim of this study was to assess how the use of different diagnostic criteria influences estimated IBS prevalence and, in particular, to compare how this prevalence varies using the new Rome II criteria and previous diagnostic criteria. METHODS: An epidemiological survey was conducted in the general population using personal interviews in a home setting. Two thousand individuals stratified by gender, age, social class and geographic location were randomly selected from the general population of Spain. Participants were classified as 'potential IBS subjects' (n = 281) or 'non-potential IBS subjects' (n = 1719) as a result of their response to a screening question regarding the presence of abdominal pain, constipation or diarrhoea. Thus, we estimated IBS prevalence according to the following diagnostic criteria: Manning, Rome I, Rome II, Drossman, Talley and Kay & Jorgensen. RESULTS: Prevalences of IBS according to the Manning and Rome I criteria were 10.3% and 12.1%, respectively. These were higher than the prevalences obtained with the other criteria used, which varied from 2.1% to 4.9%. IBS was more prevalent in females than males irrespective of the criteria used (the female:male ratio ranged from 2.33 to 4.33). Subjects who fulfilled the Rome II, Drossman, Talley or Kay & Jorgensen criteria also fulfilled the Rome I and Manning criteria. However, between 44% and 80% of subjects who fulfilled the Rome I or Manning criteria did not fulfil the more stringent diagnostic criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of IBS varies enormously depending on the diagnostic criteria employed. Criteria based on the frequency of symptoms, such as the Rome II criteria, produce much lower prevalence values compared to criteria based solely on the presence of symptoms. In fact, more than two-thirds of subjects who fulfilled the Rome I criteria would not have been diagnosed with IBS if Rome II criteria had been employed.     

Irritable Bowel Syndrome Prevalence Varies Enormously Depending on the Employed Diagnostic Criteria: Comparison of Rome II Versus Previous Criteria in a General Population

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) prevalence estimates are essential for measuring the importance of the problem and the burden of the illness. However, IBS diagnosis is based on clinical criteria which have changed over time. The aim of this study was to assess how the use of different diagnostic criteria influences estimated IBS prevalence and, in particular, to compare how this prevalence varies using the new Rome II criteria and previous diagnostic criteria. Methods: An epidemiological survey was conducted in the general population using personal interviews in a home setting. Two thousand individuals stratified by gender, age, social class and geographic location were randomly selected from the general population of Spain. Participants were classified as 'potential IBS subjects' ( n = 281) or 'non-potential IBS subjects' ( n = 1719) as a result of their response to a screening question regarding the presence of abdominal pain, constipation or diarrhoea. Thus, we estimated IBS prevalence according to the following diagnostic criteria: Manning, Rome I, Rome II, Drossman, Talley and Kay & Jorgensen. Results: Prevalences of IBS according to the Manning and Rome I criteria were 10.3% and 12.1%, respectively. These were higher than the prevalences obtained with the other criteria used, which varied from 2.1% to 4.9%. IBS was more prevalent in females than males irrespective of the criteria used (the female:male ratio ranged from 2.33 to 4.33). Subjects who fulfilled the Rome II, Drossman, Talley or Kay & Jorgensen criteria also fulfilled the Rome I and Manning criteria. However, between 44% and 80% of subjects who fulfilled the Rome I or Manning criteria did not fulfil the more stringent diagnostic criteria. Conclusions: The prevalence of IBS varies enormously depending on the diagnostic criteria employed. Criteria based on the frequency of symptoms, such as the Rome II criteria, produce much lower prevalence values compared to criteria based solely on the presence of symptoms. In fact, more than two-thirds of subjects who fulfilled the Rome I criteria would not have been diagnosed with IBS if Rome II criteria had been employed.     

Irritable bowel syndrome:A clinical review

Irritable bowel syndrome(IBS)remains a clinical challenge in the 21st century.It’s the most commonly diagnosed gastrointestinal condition and also the most common reason for referral to gastroenterology clinics.Its can affect up to one in five people at some point in their lives,and has a significantly impact of life quality and health care utilization.The prevalence varies according to country and criteria used to define IBS.Various mechanisms and theories have been proposed about its etiology,but the biopsychosocial model is the most currently accepted for IBS.The complex of symptoms would be the result of the interaction between psychological,behavioral,psychosocial and environmental factors.The diagnosis of IBS is not confirmed by a specific test or structural abnormality.It is made using criteria based on clinical symptoms such as Rome criteria,unless the symptoms are thought to be atypical.Today the Rome CriteriaⅢis the current goldstandard for the diagnoses of IBS.Secure positive evidence of IBS by means of specific disease marker is currently not possible and cannot be currently recommended for routine diagnosis.There is still no clinical evidence to recommend the use of biomarkers in blood to diagnose IBS.However,a number of different changes in IBS patients were demonstrated in recent years,some of which can be used in the future as a diagnostic support.IBS has no definitive treatment but could be controlled by non-pharmacologic management eliminating of some exacerbating factors such certain drugs,stressor conditions and changes in dietary habits.The traditional pharmacologic management of IBS has been symptom based and several drugs have been used.However,the cornerstone of its therapy is a solid patient physician relationship.This review will provide a summary of pathophysiology,diagnostic criteria and current and emerging therapies for IBS.     

The challenge of diagnosing irritable bowel syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has not been associated with any pathopneumonic structural, biochemical, or serologic abnormalities. In addition, the symptoms associated with IBS mimic those of many other diseases. Physicians, therefore, face a challenge when presented with a patient who has symptoms consistent with IBS. The physician must be able to correctly identify patients who truly have the disorder, while excluding patients for whom symptoms are related to a non-IBS cause. Standard diagnostic criteria, such as the Manning and Rome criteria, greatly facilitate the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of IBS.     

Irritable bowel syndrome: physicians' awareness and patients' experience

AIM: To study if and how physicians use the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) diagnostic criteria and to assess treatment strategies in IBS patients. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 191 physicians regarding IBS criteria, diagnostic methods and treatment. Furthermore, 94 patients who were diagnosed with IBS underwent telephone interview. RESULTS: A total of 80/191 (41.9%) physicians responded to the survey. Overall, 13 patients were diag-nosed monthly with IBS by specialists in gastroenterology (SGs) and 2.5 patients by general practitioners (GPs). All the SGs knew of the criteria to diagnose IBS, as did 46/70 (65.7%) GPs. Seventy-nine percent used the patient’s history, 38% used a physical examination, and 38% exclusion of other diseases to diagnose IBS. Only 18/80 (22.5%) physicians used specific IBS criteria. Of the patients interviewed, 59/94 (62.8%) knew they had experienced IBS. Two out of five patients knew IBS and had seen a physician because of IBS symptoms. Half of those received a diagnosis of IBS. A total of 13% were satisfied with treatment. IBS affected daily activities in 43% of cases. CONCLUSION: Half of the patients with IBS who consulted a physician received a diagnosis. Awareness and knowledge of diagnostic criteria for IBS differ between SGs and GPs.     

Evidence- and consensus-based practice guidelines for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) presents a significant diagnostic and management challenge for primary care practitioners. Improving the accuracy and timeliness of diagnosis may result in improved quality and efficiency of care. OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise the existing diagnostic criteria and combine the evidence with expert opinion to derive evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for a diagnostic approach to patients with suspected IBS. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review (January 1966-April 2000) of computerized bibliographic databases. Articles meeting explicit inclusion criteria for diagnostic studies in IBS were subjected to critical appraisal, which formed the basis of guideline statements presented to an expert panel. To develop a diagnostic algorithm, an expert panel of specialists and primary care physicians was used to fill in gaps in the literature. Consensus was developed using a modified Delphi technique. RESULTS: The systematic literature review identified only 13 published studies regarding the effectiveness of competing diagnostic approaches for IBS, the accuracy of diagnostic tests, and the internal validity of current diagnostic symptom criteria. Few studies met accepted methodological criteria. While symptom criteria have been validated, the utility of endoscopic and other diagnostic interventions remains unknown. An analysis of the literature, combined with consensus from experienced clinicians, resulted in the development of a diagnostic algorithm relevant to primary care that emphasizes a symptom-based diagnostic approach, refers patients with alarm symptoms to subspecialists, and reserves radiographic, endoscopic, and other tests for referral cases. The resulting algorithm highlights the reliance on symptom criteria and comprises a primary module, 3 submodules based on the predominant symptom pattern (constipation, diarrhea, and pain) and severity level, and a subspecialist referral module. CONCLUSIONS: The dearth of available evidence highlights the need for more rigorous scientific validation to identify the most accurate methods of diagnosing IBS. Until such time, the diagnostic algorithm presented herein could inform decision making for a range of providers caring for primary care patients with abdominal discomfort or pain and altered bowel function suggestive of IBS.     

肠易激综合征的临床诊治：问题与挑战

肠易激综合征（IBS）发病机制复杂,其临床诊断和治疗一直在探索中前进。随着基础和临床研究的深入,IBS诊断标准不断更新,诞生了更为实用的罗马Ⅲ标准,新的治疗药物和治疗方法亦不断涌现,如选择性5-羟色胺4受体激动剂普卡必利、抗抑郁治疗、抗生素的应用等,给IBS的诊治带来了曙光。然而新兴事物的发展是一个不断成熟的过程,IBS相关研究在快速发展的同时亦产生了诸多问题。本文就新近IBS临床诊治面临的问题与挑战作一概述。     

Irritable bowel syndrome: epidemiology, natural history, health care seeking and emerging risk factors

IBS is a common condition, affecting approximately 3% to 15% of the general population based on various diagnostic criteria. There seem to be differences in disease epidemiology between the eastern and the western world. As data from larger Asian epidemiological studies begin to surface,however, such differences appear to be less marked. The proportion of IBS patients who consult a physician for their symptoms is around 50%.Psychological factors and the presence and duration of abdominal pain are all significant predictors for health care seeking. The natural history of IBS is characterized by frequent fluctuation of symptoms and by an overlap with other functional GI disorders, some of which share a number of risk factors for IBS. Unnecessary abdominal surgery is performed in a high proportion of IBS sufferers. Along with the established role for psychosocial conditions in IBS, other risk factors are emerging. Evidence for postinfectious IBS is mounting, but the clinical usefulness of characterizing such patients remains unclear. Food sensitivities are frequently present in IBS, but more well-conducted trials of avoidance diets and desensitization are needed. Finally,genetic markers in IBS are an increasing focus of attention, but the amount of phenotypic variance explained by genetic variability remains to be established.     

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.     

Diagnosing irritable bowel syndrome: poor agreement between general practitioners and the Rome II criteria

BACKGROUND: The new guidelines for diagnosing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in clinical practice recommend the use of the Rome II criteria. In this study the agreement between general practitioners (GPs) and the Rome II criteria for diagnosing of IBS and functional bowel disorders (FBD) is examined. METHODS: Consecutive patients in general practice were asked to report on abdominal complaints, for which they had consulted or wanted to consult a GP. Patients with such complaints completed a questionnaire based on the Rome II criteria for FBD. After consultations, the GPs reported their diagnoses on the abdominal complaints. RESULTS: Of 3097 screened patients, 553 patients were diagnosed by their GP and had complete data in the questionnaire. Of these patients, 107 had IBS according to the GPs and 209 had IBS according to the Rome II criteria (agreement 58%, kappa 0.01 (CI: -0.06; 0.09)). Agreement on IBS and FBD in patients without organic disease, without reflux or dyspepsia and in patients with a verified diagnosis was 45%-58%, with kappa values from -0.02 to 0.13. IBS and FBD cases were diagnosed by the Rome II criteria more often than by the GPs in all these groups of patients (P < 0.001). In patients with diagnostic discrepancies concerning IBS, 'stress-related symptoms' was predictive of a diagnosis of IBS made by the GPs only (OR 2.17 (CI: 1.1; 4.2)). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows poor agreement in the diagnosis of IBS between GPs and the Rome II criteria. Therefore, current knowledge about IBS based on strict criteria is not necessarily transferable to patients with IBS in general practice.     

Nongastrointestinal disorders in the irritable bowel syndrome

A large proportion of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients also complain of other functional disorders, such as headache, noncardiac chest pain, low back pain, and dysuria. Some of these features, particularly headache, may have a negative influence on the outcome of IBS. In a large proportion of female IBS patients, sexual intercourse triggers the symptoms, and frequently IBS symptoms exacerbate during menses. These gynecological-type symptoms often mislead the patients to the gynecological clinic, which may imply unnecessary investigations and inappropriate treatments. The diagnostic criteria of the fibromyalgia syndrome include IBS, and hence, the apparent relationship of both syndromes is difficult to analyze. On the other hand, no convincing evidence has been produced to date to sustain an association between IBS and the chronic fatigue syndrome.     

Irritable bowel syndrome in general practice: an overview

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder that is frequently seen in gastroenterological practice. Population-based studies have shown that at any point in time IBS symptoms are present in about 3%-22% of the general Western population. In general practice, half of all new patients have functional disorders and IBS is responsible for about five consultations per week. General practitioners (GPs) manage the majority of IBS patients, but most knowledge (and research) is based on the smaller percentage of patients managed in secondary care. There is a paucity of literature on differences or similarities between these two groups with regard to clinical characteristics or diagnostic approach. METHODS: The literature published in English about IBS in general practice was reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Irritable bowel syndrome is frequently encountered in primary care. Primary care IBS patients, compared to secondary care patients, are likely to be young, female and to have less severe symptoms. But this is only true for some symptoms; for example, non-abdominal complaints are equally reported in both groups. The disorder can be diagnosed safely using internationally agreed symptom-based criteria, such as the Rome II criteria. Additional diagnostic measures will be necessary to support the diagnosis in only a minority of situations. Many primary care IBS patients can be managed given adequate reassurance and education, frequently without additional pharmacological treatment.     

Epidemiology of irritable bowel syndrome in Asia: Something old, something new, something borrowed

In this review we have unearthed epidemiological data that; support the 'old' concept of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) as a disorder of civilization, build a 'new' symptom profile of IBS for Asia, and persuade us against the use of 'borrowed' Western diagnostic criteria and illness models by Asian societies. In the 1960s, IBS was described as a disorder of civilization. Early studies from Asia suggested a prevalence of IBS below 5%. Recent studies from Asia suggest a trend for the more affluent city states like Singapore and Tokyo, to have higher prevalence of 8.6% and 9.8%, respectively, while India had the lowest prevalence of 4.2%. Furthermore, there was a trend among the better educated and more affluent strata of society in several urban Chinese populations for a higher prevalence of IBS, as well as a trend for a higher consultation rate. Across Chinese and Indian predominant populations, a majority of patients with IBS criteria report upper abdominal symptoms such as epigastric pain relieved by defecation, bloating and dyspepsia. Bloating and incomplete evacuation appear to be more important determinants of consultation behavior, than psychological factors. The failure of the Rome criteria to recognize the relationship to meals, may have led to a substantial misclassification of IBS as dyspepsia. The relevance of the Western model of psychological disturbance as a determinant of consultation behavior is questionable because of the accessibility and acceptability of medical consultation for gastrointestinal complaints in many Asian communities.     

关于肠易激综合征概念的几点认识

肠易激综合征（IBS）是与肠道动力和内脏感觉异常有关的功能性胃肠病。心理、社会、环境、遗传等因素在发病过程中起极为重要的作用。IBS多发生在伴有不同程度心理调节障碍、具有遗传特征的易患群体．有明显的家庭聚集现象。当前公认的罗马Ⅲ诊断标准是以临床症状学为依据,部分符合诊断标准的IBS患者．其肠黏膜可能存在免疫细胞浸润、免疫激活和轻微黏膜炎症,这种炎症在IBS中的潜在作用已引起人们的关注．目前尚无一种药物对IBS的治疗完全有效,IBS的治疗应遵循个体化治疗的原则,采取综合性治疗措施。未来需对IBS的病理学、免疫学和肠内微生态学有更全面的认识．以进一步思考IBS的诊断方式和标准。     

Prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in the French population according to the Rome I criteria

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastro-intestinal disease. In the absence of specific markers, definition and hence diagnosis depend on clinical presentation. Of the various attempts to set criteria for IBS, the most recent are Rome I and Rome II classifications. AIMS: To estimate in a general population the prevalence of IBS using the modified Rome I criteria, and to investigate socio-demographic criteria, symptoms and management. METHODS: A total of 11,131 people aged 18 years and over, representative of the French population, were surveyed. A diagnostic questionnaire based on the modified Rome I criteria was used to identify IBS sufferers, who were then questioned further about the symptoms and medical management of their IBS. RESULTS: Of the 5,299 men and 5,832 women interviewed, 445 had IBS according to the Rome I criteria, a prevalence of 4% (95% CI: 3.6%-4.4%). IBS was more frequent in women (5.3%) than in men (2.5%), with a sex ratio (F/M) of 2.3. In 9.1% of sufferers, onset had occurred less than 12 months ago, a yearly incidence of 3.6 per 1,000 of the population. In 32.3% of IBS sufferers diarrhoea was predominant, and in 34.6% constipation was predominant. Of IBS sufferers 83.7% had consulted a physician for their condition, and 87.6% had taken medication for their IBS symptoms over the previous 12 months. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of IBS observed in this study in France was close to the lower limit in published data (3 to 20%). Our results suggest that the Rome I criteria are not sensitive enough to detect all IBS patients in a population not actively seeking health care intervention for the condition. In this regard, the refined classification (Rome II) which was established after our study was carried-out should be evaluated.     

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.