{"title":"Diagnosis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Primary Care Physicians Compared with Gastroenterologists.","authors":"Genevieve Pareki, Amy Wozniak, Ayokunle Temidayo Abegunde","doi":"10.3121/cmr.2023.1817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To examine disparities between primary care provider (PCP) and gastroenterologist diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).<b>Design:</b> Retrospective cross-sectional study.<b>Setting:</b> A 547-bed quaternary-care hospital within the Loyola University Healthcare System.<b>Participants:</b> 1000 patients aged 18-65 with an ICD-10 diagnosis of IBS<b>Methods:</b> We randomly selected 1000 patients aged 18 to 65 years within the Loyola University Healthcare System's electronic medical record with an ICD-10 diagnosis of IBS. Physician notes and diagnostic results were reviewed for documentation of symptoms fulfilling Rome IV criteria and resolution of symptoms. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of primary diagnoses assigned by PCPs and gastroenterologists were assessed along with number of diagnostic tests ordered.<b>Results:</b> The mean age (SD) was 45 (12) years, and 76.9% were female. Sensitivity of an IBS diagnosis by a PCP was 77.6% (95% CI 73.3-81.9), compared with 60.1% (95% CI 54.7-65.6) for a gastroenterologist. Specificity of an IBS diagnosis by a PCP was 27.5% (95% CI 23.5-31.5), compared with 71.1% (95% CI 64.6-77.5) for a gastroenterologist diagnosis of IBS. A gastroenterologist diagnosis of IBS carried a high PPV (77.3%, 95% CI 72.0-82.6) compared with 44.6% (95% CI 40.7-48.5) for a PCP. Of 180 patients with outcome data, 69.4% had resolution of symptoms at follow-up.<b>Conclusion:</b> The sensitivity of gastroenterologist diagnosis of IBS closely matches the sensitivity of Rome IV criteria in validation studies. The high specificity and PPV of gastroenterologists suggest more cautious diagnosis by gastroenterologists, with PCPs more likely to assign a diagnosis of IBS incorrectly or without sufficient documentation of symptoms fulfilling Rome IV criteria. Reported resolution rates suggest primary care management of IBS is appropriate, but PCPs may benefit from gastroenterologist consultation and diagnostic guidelines for greater specificity in diagnosing IBS.</p>","PeriodicalId":47429,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10659134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine & Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.2023.1817","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To examine disparities between primary care provider (PCP) and gastroenterologist diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study.Setting: A 547-bed quaternary-care hospital within the Loyola University Healthcare System.Participants: 1000 patients aged 18-65 with an ICD-10 diagnosis of IBSMethods: We randomly selected 1000 patients aged 18 to 65 years within the Loyola University Healthcare System's electronic medical record with an ICD-10 diagnosis of IBS. Physician notes and diagnostic results were reviewed for documentation of symptoms fulfilling Rome IV criteria and resolution of symptoms. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of primary diagnoses assigned by PCPs and gastroenterologists were assessed along with number of diagnostic tests ordered.Results: The mean age (SD) was 45 (12) years, and 76.9% were female. Sensitivity of an IBS diagnosis by a PCP was 77.6% (95% CI 73.3-81.9), compared with 60.1% (95% CI 54.7-65.6) for a gastroenterologist. Specificity of an IBS diagnosis by a PCP was 27.5% (95% CI 23.5-31.5), compared with 71.1% (95% CI 64.6-77.5) for a gastroenterologist diagnosis of IBS. A gastroenterologist diagnosis of IBS carried a high PPV (77.3%, 95% CI 72.0-82.6) compared with 44.6% (95% CI 40.7-48.5) for a PCP. Of 180 patients with outcome data, 69.4% had resolution of symptoms at follow-up.Conclusion: The sensitivity of gastroenterologist diagnosis of IBS closely matches the sensitivity of Rome IV criteria in validation studies. The high specificity and PPV of gastroenterologists suggest more cautious diagnosis by gastroenterologists, with PCPs more likely to assign a diagnosis of IBS incorrectly or without sufficient documentation of symptoms fulfilling Rome IV criteria. Reported resolution rates suggest primary care management of IBS is appropriate, but PCPs may benefit from gastroenterologist consultation and diagnostic guidelines for greater specificity in diagnosing IBS.
目的:探讨初级保健医生(PCP)和胃肠科医生在肠易激综合征(IBS)诊断和治疗方面的差异。设计:回顾性横断面研究。设置:洛约拉大学医疗保健系统内547个床位的四级护理医院。研究对象:1000名年龄在18-65岁之间,诊断为肠易激综合征的患者。方法:我们在洛约拉大学医疗系统的电子病历中随机选择1000名年龄在18-65岁之间,诊断为肠易激综合征的患者。审查医生记录和诊断结果,以确定符合Rome IV标准的症状和症状的解决情况。对初级诊断的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)以及由pcp和胃肠病学家指定的诊断测试进行评估。结果:患者平均年龄45(12)岁,女性占76.9%。PCP诊断IBS的敏感性为77.6% (95% CI 73.3-81.9),而胃肠病学诊断为60.1% (95% CI 54.7-65.6)。PCP诊断肠易激综合征的特异性为27.5% (95% CI 23.5-31.5),而胃肠病学诊断肠易激综合征的特异性为71.1% (95% CI 64.6-77.5)。胃肠病学诊断为IBS的患者PPV较高(77.3%,95% CI 72.0-82.6),而PCP患者则为44.6% (95% CI 40.7-48.5)。在180例有结果数据的患者中,69.4%的患者在随访时症状得到缓解。结论:在验证研究中,胃肠病学诊断IBS的敏感性与Rome IV标准的敏感性非常接近。胃肠病学家的高特异性和PPV提示胃肠病学家的诊断更加谨慎,pcp更有可能错误地诊断IBS或没有足够的符合Rome IV标准的症状记录。报告的治愈率表明,IBS的初级保健管理是适当的,但pcp可能受益于胃肠病学家咨询和诊断指南,以更具体地诊断IBS。
期刊介绍:
Clinical Medicine & Research is a peer reviewed publication of original scientific medical research that is relevant to a broad audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Articles are published quarterly in the following topics: -Medicine -Clinical Research -Evidence-based Medicine -Preventive Medicine -Translational Medicine -Rural Health -Case Reports -Epidemiology -Basic science -History of Medicine -The Art of Medicine -Non-Clinical Aspects of Medicine & Science