Diagnostic Criteria for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Utility and Applicability in Clinical PracticeLea R. · Hopkins V. · Hastleton J. · Houghton L.A. · Whorwell P.J.
Medical Academic Department, South Manchester University Hospitals, Manchester, UK
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background/Aims: Symptom-based criteria have been introduced to aid the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Although they have been widely adopted and have proved useful for research purposes by ensuring homogeneity of study populations, there is little information about their utility in routine clinical practice. It was the aim of this study to assess the applicability of the Manning, Rome I and Rome II criteria in the clinical setting and to ascertain how often hospital specialists and general practitioners (GPs) use them. Methods: Hundred secondary-care IBS patients were assessed for their conformity to these criteria. Forty-eight hospital specialists and 68 GPs were asked about their knowledge and utilization of these criteria. Results: Seventy-three percent of IBS patients met Rome II diagnostic criteria with 82 and 94% meeting Rome I and Manning, respectively. Approximately 80% of GPs had no knowledge of any of the specific criteria, and only 4% had ever used them. The majority of specialists had knowledge of the criteria, with 70% having used them. Conclusion: The Rome II criteria are remarkably insensitive and if rigidly applied in the clinical situation would lead to much diagnostic uncertainty. The current lack of interest in them, especially amongst GPs, is unlikely to change unless they can be considerably improved.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.