{"title":"在诊断肠易激综合征时,罗马III和罗马IV标准在临床患者中的不一致性要小于在社区受试者中的不一致性。","authors":"Uday C Ghoshal, Uzma Mustafa, Vipin Kumar Pandey","doi":"10.1007/s12664-024-01611-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Though Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are less sensitive; they select Rome III patients with greater severity and consultation behavior. Since severity of IBS may determine consultation behavior, we compared Rome III and IV criteria in clinic patients and compared with earlier published data from Indian community hypothesizing that the diagnostic discordance between these criteria would be less in clinic than in community.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tertiary clinic patients were screened for IBS using Hindi translated-validated Rome III and IV questionnaires; IBS symptom severity scores (IBS-SSS) was also assessed. Diagnostic discordance between Rome III and IV criteria for IBS was compared with earlier published Indian community data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 110 clinic patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders, 72 met IBS criteria (47 [42.7%], 22 [20%] and three [2.7%] both Rome III and IV criteria, Rome III criteria only and Rome IV criteria only, respectively). In contrast, of 40 IBS subjects from Indian community published earlier, nine (22.5%), 28 (70%) and three (7.5%) fulfilled both Rome III and IV, Rome III only, Rome IV only criteria, respectively. Clinic patients with IBS fulfilling both Rome III and IV criteria or Rome IV criteria had higher IBS-SSS than those fulfilling Rome III criteria only (295.3 ± 80.7 vs. 205.6 ± 65.7; p < 0.00001). This difference was primarily related to pain severity and number of days with pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Discordance between Rome IV and Rome III criteria in tertiary care clinic patients is less than in community subjects with IBS in India.</p>","PeriodicalId":13404,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rome III and IV criteria are less discordant to diagnose irritable bowel syndrome in clinic patients than in community subjects.\",\"authors\":\"Uday C Ghoshal, Uzma Mustafa, Vipin Kumar Pandey\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12664-024-01611-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Though Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are less sensitive; they select Rome III patients with greater severity and consultation behavior. Since severity of IBS may determine consultation behavior, we compared Rome III and IV criteria in clinic patients and compared with earlier published data from Indian community hypothesizing that the diagnostic discordance between these criteria would be less in clinic than in community.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tertiary clinic patients were screened for IBS using Hindi translated-validated Rome III and IV questionnaires; IBS symptom severity scores (IBS-SSS) was also assessed. Diagnostic discordance between Rome III and IV criteria for IBS was compared with earlier published Indian community data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 110 clinic patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders, 72 met IBS criteria (47 [42.7%], 22 [20%] and three [2.7%] both Rome III and IV criteria, Rome III criteria only and Rome IV criteria only, respectively). In contrast, of 40 IBS subjects from Indian community published earlier, nine (22.5%), 28 (70%) and three (7.5%) fulfilled both Rome III and IV, Rome III only, Rome IV only criteria, respectively. Clinic patients with IBS fulfilling both Rome III and IV criteria or Rome IV criteria had higher IBS-SSS than those fulfilling Rome III criteria only (295.3 ± 80.7 vs. 205.6 ± 65.7; p < 0.00001). This difference was primarily related to pain severity and number of days with pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Discordance between Rome IV and Rome III criteria in tertiary care clinic patients is less than in community subjects with IBS in India.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-024-01611-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-024-01611-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:虽然肠易激综合征(IBS)的罗马 IV 标准灵敏度较低;但它们选择的罗马 III 病人的严重程度更高,就诊行为也更多。由于肠易激综合征的严重程度可能决定就诊行为,我们比较了诊所患者的罗马 III 和罗马 IV 标准,并与印度社区早先发表的数据进行了比较,假设这些标准之间的诊断不一致在诊所会比在社区少:方法: 使用经印地语翻译验证的罗马III和罗马IV调查问卷对三级诊所患者进行肠易激综合征筛查;同时评估肠易激综合征症状严重程度评分(IBS-SSS)。将 IBS 的罗马 III 和 IV 标准之间的诊断不一致性与早先公布的印度社区数据进行了比较:结果:在 110 名患有功能性胃肠功能紊乱的门诊患者中,72 人符合 IBS 标准(分别有 47 人[42.7%]、22 人[20%]和 3 人[2.7%]同时符合罗马 III 和 IV 标准、仅符合罗马 III 标准和仅符合罗马 IV 标准)。相比之下,在早前发表的 40 名印度社区 IBS 患者中,分别有 9 人(22.5%)、28 人(70%)和 3 人(7.5%)同时符合罗马 III 和 IV 标准、仅符合罗马 III 标准和仅符合罗马 IV 标准。同时符合罗马Ⅲ和罗马Ⅳ标准或罗马Ⅳ标准的肠易激综合征患者的 IBS-SSS 值高于仅符合罗马Ⅲ标准的患者(295.3 ± 80.7 vs. 205.6 ± 65.7;P 结论:罗马Ⅳ标准和罗马Ⅲ标准不一致:在印度,三级医疗诊所患者中罗马 IV 和罗马 III 标准的不一致性低于社区 IBS 患者。
Rome III and IV criteria are less discordant to diagnose irritable bowel syndrome in clinic patients than in community subjects.
Background: Though Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are less sensitive; they select Rome III patients with greater severity and consultation behavior. Since severity of IBS may determine consultation behavior, we compared Rome III and IV criteria in clinic patients and compared with earlier published data from Indian community hypothesizing that the diagnostic discordance between these criteria would be less in clinic than in community.
Methods: Tertiary clinic patients were screened for IBS using Hindi translated-validated Rome III and IV questionnaires; IBS symptom severity scores (IBS-SSS) was also assessed. Diagnostic discordance between Rome III and IV criteria for IBS was compared with earlier published Indian community data.
Results: Of 110 clinic patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders, 72 met IBS criteria (47 [42.7%], 22 [20%] and three [2.7%] both Rome III and IV criteria, Rome III criteria only and Rome IV criteria only, respectively). In contrast, of 40 IBS subjects from Indian community published earlier, nine (22.5%), 28 (70%) and three (7.5%) fulfilled both Rome III and IV, Rome III only, Rome IV only criteria, respectively. Clinic patients with IBS fulfilling both Rome III and IV criteria or Rome IV criteria had higher IBS-SSS than those fulfilling Rome III criteria only (295.3 ± 80.7 vs. 205.6 ± 65.7; p < 0.00001). This difference was primarily related to pain severity and number of days with pain.
Conclusion: Discordance between Rome IV and Rome III criteria in tertiary care clinic patients is less than in community subjects with IBS in India.
期刊介绍:
The Indian Journal of Gastroenterology aims to help doctors everywhere practise better medicine and to influence the debate on gastroenterology. To achieve these aims, we publish original scientific studies, state-of -the-art special articles, reports and papers commenting on the clinical, scientific and public health factors affecting aspects of gastroenterology. We shall be delighted to receive articles for publication in all of these categories and letters commenting on the contents of the Journal or on issues of interest to our readers.