Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25424582›Full record

Trial reportNeurogastroenterology and motility2014

The accuracy of patient-reported measures for GI symptoms: a comparison of real time and retrospective reports.

J M Lackner, J Jaccard, L Keefer, R Firth, A M Carosella, M Sitrin, D Brenner, Representing the IBSOS Research Group

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Symptoms of Constipation: Relationship Between Questionnaires and Diaries and Impact on Quality of Life.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J M LacknerDepartments of Medicine and Biomedical Informatics, University at Buffalo School of Medicine, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA.
J Jaccard
L Keefer
R Firth
A M Carosella
M Sitrin
D Brenner
Representing the IBSOS Research Group
University at Buffalo, State University of New York · USNorthwestern University · USNew York University · US

Funding

Self-Administered CBT for IBS: A Multicenter TrialU01DK077738 · NIDDK · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI LACKNER, JEFFREY M · 2008 to 2014
$8.1M
NIDDK NIH HHS DK53317NIDDK NIH HHS DK77738NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK077738
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObtaining accurate information about gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms is critical to achieving the goals of clinical research and practice. The accuracy of patient data is especially important for functional GI disorders (e.g., IBS) whose symptoms lack a biomarker and index illness severity and treatment response. Retrospective patient-reported data are vulnerable to forgetting and various cognitive biases whose impact has not been systematically studied in patients with GI disorders. The aim of this study was to document the accuracy of patient-reported GI symptoms over a reporting period (1 week) most representative of the time frame used in research and clinical care.

methodsSubjects were 273 Rome III-diagnosed IBS patients (mean age = 39 years, 89% F) who completed end of day GI symptom ratings for 7 days using an electronic diary. On Day 8, Subjects recalled the frequency and/or intensity of IBS symptoms over the past 7 days. Reports were then compared against a validation criterion based on aggregated end of day ratings. KEY

resultsAt the group level, subjects recalled most accurately abdominal pain and urgency intensity at their worst, urgency days, and stool frequency. When data were analyzed at the individual level, a subgroup of subjects had difficulty recalling accurately symptoms that showed convergence between recall and real time reports at the group level. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Although many patients' recollection for specific GI symptoms (e.g., worst pain, stool frequency) is reasonably accurate, a non-trivial number of other symptoms (e.g., typical pain) are vulnerable to distortion from recall biases that can reduce sensitivity of detecting treatment effects in clinical and research settings.

Indexed as

Dimensional Measurement AccuracyIrritable Bowel SyndromeMental RecallSelf ReportAdultFemaleHumansMaledaily diaryirritable bowel syndromepainpain measurementrandomized trialrecallsymptom severity

Identifiers

PMID25424582
PMCPMC4247164
OpenAlexW2043123337

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.