The effect of new diagnostic criteria for irritable bowel syndrome on community prevalence estimates

Y. A. Saito, N. J. Talley, L. J. Melton, S. Fett, A. R. Zinsmeister, G. R. Locke

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Scopus citations

Abstract

The 'Rome' criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have evolved over 15 years with four published versions. The impact of these changes on community prevalence rates is not known. Study aims were to estimate the prevalence of IBS using the four Rome criteria and agreement between Rome II and previous criteria. Questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of Olmsted County, Minnesota residents in 1992. Age- and gender-adjusted prevalence estimates were calculated for Rome II (1999), Rome I (1992), Rome (1990), and Rome (1989) criteria. Per cent agreement and kappa values were calculated to assess agreement. Of 892 eligible subjects, 643 (72%) responded. The age- and gender-adjusted prevalence of IBS was 5.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.1, 7.0], 6.8% (95% CI: 4.7, 8.9), 5.1% (95% CI: 3.2, 7.1) and 27.6% (95% CI: 23.6, 31.5), respectively. In comparison with Rome II criteria, per cent agreement and κ values were 97.2% and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.88), 96.4% and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.80), and 79.0% and 0.29 (95% CI: 0.19, 0.40), respectively. Thus, although differences were seen with the older criteria, compared with the Rome I criteria, good agreement was seen and community prevalence estimates were similar with the Rome II criteria.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)687-694
Number of pages8
JournalNeurogastroenterology and Motility
Volume15
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2003

Keywords

  • Diagnostic criteria
  • Epidemiology
  • Functional bowel disorder
  • Irritable bowel syndrome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Endocrine and Autonomic Systems
  • Gastroenterology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The effect of new diagnostic criteria for irritable bowel syndrome on community prevalence estimates'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this