Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20179688›Full record

ReviewThe American journal of gastroenterology2010

Validation of symptom-based diagnostic criteria for irritable bowel syndrome: a critical review.

William E Whitehead, Douglas A Drossman

Abstract readReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Review in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Consensus Report on Shigella Controlled Human Infection Model: Conduct of Studies.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Natural polyphenols for the prevention of irritable bowel syndrome: molecular mechanisms and targets; a comprehensive review.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Irritable bowel syndrome.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

William E WhiteheadCenter for Functional Gastrointestinal and Motility Disorders, and Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7080, USA. William_Whitehead@med.unc.edu
Douglas A Drossman

Funding

PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY OF IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROMER01DK031369 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WHITEHEAD, WILLIAM E · 1986 to 2012
$6.3M
Gastrointestinal Biopsychosocial Research CenterR24DK067674 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WHITEHEAD, WILLIAM E · 2004 to 2008
$4.5M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK031369NIDDK NIH HHS R24 DK067674
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article reviews the evidence for validity of symptom-based criteria (Manning, Rome I, Rome II, and Rome III) for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Two kinds of validations are reported: (i) studies testing whether symptom criteria discriminate patients with structural disease at colonoscopy from patients without structural disease; and (ii) studies testing whether symptom criteria discriminate patients presumed to have IBS by positive diagnosis from healthy subjects or patients with other functional and structural disorders. The first study type addresses an important clinical management question but cannot provide meaningful information on the sensitivity or positive predictive value because IBS is defined only by exclusion of structural disease. Specificity is modest (about 0.7) but can be improved to 0.9 by the addition of red flag signs and symptoms. The second type of study judges validity by whether the symptom criteria consistently perform as predicted by theory. Here, factor analysis confirms consistent clusters of symptoms corresponding to IBS; symptom-based criteria agree reasonably well (sensitivity, 0.4-0.9) with clinical diagnoses made by experienced clinicians; and patients with a clinical diagnosis of IBS who fulfill Rome II criteria have greater symptom severity and poorer quality of life than patients with a clinical diagnosis of IBS who do not fulfill Rome criteria. There are no consistent differences in sensitivity or specificity between Manning, Rome I, and Rome II. Both study types support the validity of symptom-based IBS criteria. Tests of Rome III are needed.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsColonoscopyDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansIrritable Bowel SyndromePredictive Value of TestsQuality of LifeSensitivity and SpecificitySeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID20179688
PMCPMC3856202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.