Subtyping the irritable bowel syndrome by predominant bowel habit: Rome II versus Rome III

67Citations
Citations of this article
41Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The agreement between subtyping irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients based on Rome II criteria versus Rome III criteria is unknown. Aim: To compare IBS subtyping based on Rome II versus III criteria. Methods: The Rome II Modular Questionnaire and the Bristol Stool Form Scale (one-week diary cards) were completed by 249 IBS patients. Based on the Rome II criteria, patients were defined as having diarrhoea- or constipation-predominant IBS, or alternating IBS. Based on the Rome III criteria, patients were divided into IBS with constipation, IBS with diarrhoea, mixed IBS or unsubtyped IBS. Agreement between Rome II and Rome III was assessed with kappa statistics. Results: Based on Rome II there were 92 diarrhoea-predominant IBS, 45 constipation-predominant IBS and 112 alternating IBS, and based on Rome III 97 IBS with diarrhoea, 77 IBS with constipation, 16 mixed IBS and 59 unsubtyped IBS. The agreement between Rome II and Rome III subgroups was 46% (kappa = 0.19). Changes from the constipation to the diarrhoea subgroups and vice versa were uncommon (8% of patients). The majority of changes occurred from/to the alternating IBS, mixed IBS and unsubtyped IBS subgroups. Conclusion: There is poor agreement between subtyping of IBS patients based on Rome II versus Rome III criteria. © 2007 The Authors.

References Powered by Scopus

4193Citations
1695Readers
Get full text
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Get full text
215Citations
288Readers
Get full text

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ersryd, A., Posserud, I., Abrahamsson, H., & Simrén, M. (2007). Subtyping the irritable bowel syndrome by predominant bowel habit: Rome II versus Rome III. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 26(6), 953–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03422.x

Readers over time

‘10‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2402468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 15

50%

Researcher 7

23%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

13%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 18

62%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6

21%

Nursing and Health Professions 4

14%

Computer Science 1

3%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 2

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0