ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Knowledge Does Not Translate Into Diagnostic Restraint: Application of Rome-Based IBS Diagnosis Among Medical Students in Latin America.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying Rome IV Criteria to AI Models: Lessons From Pediatric Practice.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Role of Communication Skills Training in Enhancing Medical Education and Care for Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Reply: Reassurance Is Necessary but Not Sufficient: Communication Skills and Diagnostic Restraint in Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) are highly prevalent and frequently evaluated using a positive, symptom-based diagnostic framework defined by the Rome criteria. Despite guideline recommendations discouraging routine exclusionary testing in the absence of alarm features, excessive diagnostic evaluation remains common in clinical practice. Whether this pattern originates during undergraduate medical training is unknown.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter cross-sectional study of 238 medical students from 45 universities across 14 Latin American countries. Participants completed a structured survey assessing exposure to DGBI teaching, theoretical knowledge of Rome-based diagnosis, recognition of alarm features, and diagnostic decision-making using sequential standardized vignettes representing a Rome IV-consistent irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) presentation without red flags.
resultsAlthough 74% reported prior DGBI-specific teaching and 69% had heard of the Rome criteria, 70% ordered diagnostic tests in the initial Rome-consistent adult vignette. Testing escalated with increased symptom severity and persisted in 53% despite normal laboratory findings. Misclassification of functional symptoms as alarm features occurred in approximately one-third of respondents. Higher theoretical knowledge was associated with lower initial testing rates (68% vs. 83%, p = 0.010), although unnecessary testing remained common even among high-knowledge students. Only 15% met criteria for high composite clinical performance, and 21% demonstrated discordant high knowledge but poor clinical reasoning.
conclusionsThese findings identify an early divergence between Rome-based diagnostic principles and applied clinical reasoning. Diagnostic overuse in DGBIs may begin during undergraduate training, suggesting that improving education requires not only knowledge transmission but also structured reinforcement of positive diagnosis and diagnostic restraint.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.