World journal of gastroenterology · 2014
Functional gastrointestinal disorders in eating disorder patients: altered distribution and predictors using ROME III compared to ROME II criteria.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Wang Xiaojie, Luscombe Georgina M, Boyd Catherine, Kellow John, Abraham Suzanne
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the prevalence of Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) using ROME III and ROME II and to describe predictors of FGIDs among eating disorder (ED) patients.
METHODS: Two similar cohorts of female ED inpatients, aged 17-50 years, with no organic gastrointestinal or systemic disorders, completed either the ROME III (n = 100) or the ROME II (n = 160) questionnaire on admission for ED treatment. The two ROME cohorts were compared on continuous demographic variables (e.g., age, BMI) using Student's t-tests, and on categorical variables (e.g., ED diagnosis) using χ(2)-tests. The relationship between ED diagnostic subtypes and FGID categories was explored using χ(2)-tests. Age, BMI, and psychological and behavioural predictors of the common (prevalence greater than 20%) ROME III FGIDs were tested using logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: The criteria for at least one FGID were fulfilled by 83% of the ROME III cohort, and 94% of the ROME II cohort. There were no significant differences in age, BMI, lowest ever BMI, ED diagnostic subtypes or ED-related quality of life (QOL) scores between ROME II and ROME III cohorts. The most prevalent FGIDs using ROME III were postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) (45%) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (41%), followed by unspecified functional bowel disorders (U-FBD) (24%), and functional heartburn (FH) (22%). There was a 29% or 46% increase (depending on presence or absence of cyclic vomiting) in functional gastroduodenal disorders because of the introduction of PDS in ROME III compared to ROME II. There was a 35% decrease in functional bowel disorders (FBD) in Rome III (excluding U-FBD) compared to ROME II. The most significant predictor of PDS was starvation (P = 0.008). The predictor of FH (P = 0.021) and U-FBD (P = 0.007) was somatisation, and of IBS laxative use (P = 0.025). Age and BMI were not significant predictors. The addition of the 6-mo duration of symptoms requirement for a diagnosis in ROME III added precision to many FGIDs.
CONCLUSION: ROME III confers higher precision in diagnosing FGIDs but self-induced vomiting should be excluded from the diagnosis of cyclic vomiting. Psychological factors appear to be more influential in ROME II than ROME III.
METHODS: Two similar cohorts of female ED inpatients, aged 17-50 years, with no organic gastrointestinal or systemic disorders, completed either the ROME III (n = 100) or the ROME II (n = 160) questionnaire on admission for ED treatment. The two ROME cohorts were compared on continuous demographic variables (e.g., age, BMI) using Student's t-tests, and on categorical variables (e.g., ED diagnosis) using χ(2)-tests. The relationship between ED diagnostic subtypes and FGID categories was explored using χ(2)-tests. Age, BMI, and psychological and behavioural predictors of the common (prevalence greater than 20%) ROME III FGIDs were tested using logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: The criteria for at least one FGID were fulfilled by 83% of the ROME III cohort, and 94% of the ROME II cohort. There were no significant differences in age, BMI, lowest ever BMI, ED diagnostic subtypes or ED-related quality of life (QOL) scores between ROME II and ROME III cohorts. The most prevalent FGIDs using ROME III were postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) (45%) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (41%), followed by unspecified functional bowel disorders (U-FBD) (24%), and functional heartburn (FH) (22%). There was a 29% or 46% increase (depending on presence or absence of cyclic vomiting) in functional gastroduodenal disorders because of the introduction of PDS in ROME III compared to ROME II. There was a 35% decrease in functional bowel disorders (FBD) in Rome III (excluding U-FBD) compared to ROME II. The most significant predictor of PDS was starvation (P = 0.008). The predictor of FH (P = 0.021) and U-FBD (P = 0.007) was somatisation, and of IBS laxative use (P = 0.025). Age and BMI were not significant predictors. The addition of the 6-mo duration of symptoms requirement for a diagnosis in ROME III added precision to many FGIDs.
CONCLUSION: ROME III confers higher precision in diagnosing FGIDs but self-induced vomiting should be excluded from the diagnosis of cyclic vomiting. Psychological factors appear to be more influential in ROME II than ROME III.