Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2011
Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders Diagnosed by Rome III Questionnaire in Korea.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Park Jae Myung, Choi Myung-Gyu, Cho Yu Kyung, Lee In Seok, Kim Jin Il, Kim Sang Woo, Chung In-Sik
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Rome criteria classifying functional gastrointestinal disorder (FGID) were updated. The aims of this study were to assess the spectra of FGID and to evaluate the applicability of Rome III criteria in Korea.
METHODS: New patients who visited 2 primary clinics and 2 tertiary care hospitals were consecutively invited to complete questionnaires. These consisted of questionnaires for FGID based on Rome III criteria and symptom checklist-90-revised for somatization, depression and anxiety.
RESULTS: A total of 786 patients was participated. Among them, FGID was observed in 49.7%. In the patients with FGID, functional dyspepsia was most common (46.0%) followed by irritable bowel syndrome (IBS, 40.2%). Functional dyspepsia was most common both in the primary care clinics and tertiary care hospitals. Postprandial distress syndrome was the most common subtype and the frequency of epigastric pain syndrome was low. There were few responders for constipation as Bristol types 1 and 2 and for diarrhea as types 6 and 7 in subtype classification using the Bristol Stool Form Scale. Thereby, unspecified IBS defined by stool form was unexpectedly common in 43.9% of IBS, whereas unspedified IBS defined by Rome III definition was 5.1%. Patients with overlap FGIDs had higher score of anxiety, depression or somatization.
CONCLUSIONS: FGIDs were common both in primary care clinics and tertiary care hospitals of Korea. Overlap FGIDs is still common by Rome III criteria, which may limits its wide application.
METHODS: New patients who visited 2 primary clinics and 2 tertiary care hospitals were consecutively invited to complete questionnaires. These consisted of questionnaires for FGID based on Rome III criteria and symptom checklist-90-revised for somatization, depression and anxiety.
RESULTS: A total of 786 patients was participated. Among them, FGID was observed in 49.7%. In the patients with FGID, functional dyspepsia was most common (46.0%) followed by irritable bowel syndrome (IBS, 40.2%). Functional dyspepsia was most common both in the primary care clinics and tertiary care hospitals. Postprandial distress syndrome was the most common subtype and the frequency of epigastric pain syndrome was low. There were few responders for constipation as Bristol types 1 and 2 and for diarrhea as types 6 and 7 in subtype classification using the Bristol Stool Form Scale. Thereby, unspecified IBS defined by stool form was unexpectedly common in 43.9% of IBS, whereas unspedified IBS defined by Rome III definition was 5.1%. Patients with overlap FGIDs had higher score of anxiety, depression or somatization.
CONCLUSIONS: FGIDs were common both in primary care clinics and tertiary care hospitals of Korea. Overlap FGIDs is still common by Rome III criteria, which may limits its wide application.