Normative Values for Stool Frequency and Form Using Rome III Diagnostic Criteria for Functional Constipation in Adults: Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. S243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Miller ◽  
Alvin Ibarra ◽  
Arthur Ouwehand ◽  
Angela Zimmermann
Author(s):  
Desiree F. Baaleman ◽  
Carlos A. Velasco-Benítez ◽  
Laura M. Méndez-Guzmán ◽  
Marc A. Benninga ◽  
Miguel Saps

AbstractTo evaluate the agreement between the Rome III and Rome IV criteria in diagnosing pediatric functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), we conducted a prospective cohort study in a public school in Cali, Colombia. Children and adolescents between 11 and 18 years of age were given the Spanish version of the Questionnaire on Pediatric Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders Rome III version on day 0 and Rome IV version on day 2 (48 h later). The study protocol was completed by 135 children. Thirty-nine (28.9%) children were excluded because of not following the instructions of the questionnaire. The final analysis included data of 96 children (mean 15.2 years old, SD ± 1.7, 54% girls). Less children fulfilled the criteria for an FGID according to Rome IV compared to Rome III (40.6% vs 29.2%, p=0.063) resulting in a minimal agreement between the two criteria in diagnosing an FGID (kappa 0.34, agreement of 70%). The prevalence of functional constipation according to Rome IV was significantly lower compared to Rome III (13.5% vs 31.3%, p<0.001), whereas functional dyspepsia had a higher prevalence according to Rome IV than Rome III (11.5% vs 0%).Conclusion: We found an overall minimal agreement in diagnosing FGIDs according to Rome III and Rome IV criteria. This may be partly explained by the differences in diagnostic criteria. However, limitations with the use of questionnaires to measure prevalence have to be taken into account. What is Known:• The Rome IV criteria replaced the previous Rome III criteria providing updated criteria to diagnose functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs).• Differences found between Rome IV and historic Rome III FGID prevalence may have been affected by changes in prevalence over time or differences in sample characteristics. What is New:• We found a minimal agreement between Rome III and Rome IV FGID diagnosis, especially in the diagnoses of functional constipation, irritable bowel syndrome, and functional dyspepsia.• The minimal agreement may be partly explained by changes in diagnostic criteria, but limitations with the use of questionnaires to measure prevalence have to be taken into account.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 666
Author(s):  
Fahimeh Ramezani Tehrani ◽  
Marzieh Saei Ghare Naz ◽  
Razieh Bidhendi Yarandi ◽  
Samira Behboudi-Gandevani

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of different gestational-diabetes (GDM) diagnostic-criteria on the risk of adverse-maternal-outcomes. The search process encompassed PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science databases to retrieve original, population-based studies with the universal GDM screening approach, published in English language and with a focus on adverse-maternal-outcomes up to January 2020. According to GDM diagnostic criteria, the studies were classified into seven groups. A total of 49 population-based studies consisting of 1409018 pregnant women with GDM and 7,667,546 non-GDM counterparts were selected for data analysis and knowledge synthesis. Accordingly, the risk of adverse-maternal-outcomes including primary-cesarean, induction of labor, maternal-hemorrhage, and pregnancy-related-hypertension, overall, regardless of GDM diagnostic-criteria and in all diagnostic-criteria subgroups were significantly higher than non-GDM counterparts. However, in meta-regression, the increased risk was not influenced by the GDM diagnostic-classification and the magnitude of the risks among patients, using the IADPSG criteria-classification as the most strict-criteria, was similar to other criteria. In conclusion, a reduction in the diagnostic-threshold increased the prevalence of GDM, but the risk of adverse-maternal-outcome was not different among those women who were diagnosed through more or less intensive strategies. Our review findings can empower health-care-providers to select the most cost-effective approach for the screening of GDM among pregnant women.


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Bozzetti Pigozzi ◽  
Duziene Denardini Pereira ◽  
Marcos Pascoal Pattussi ◽  
Carmen Moret-Tatay ◽  
Tatiana Quarti Irigaray ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims To compare the difference in the quality of life between temporomandibular disorders (TMD) patients and non-TMD subjects diagnosed with the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) or the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD). Methods Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases were searched in studies published in English and Portuguese. The search was performed by two independent reviewers in duplicate. A manual search and the gray literature were also included. The inclusion criteria were clinical studies that used the RDC/TMD axis I and quality of life with standard questionnaires in young and middle-aged adult population (18–55 years). The data were analyzed quantitatively by combining the results in a meta-analysis using forest plots. The measure of effect used was the standardized mean difference (SMD) in depression levels. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. The publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. The initial search included 806 articles without duplications. Results Twenty-four articles were included in the final systematic review. Of these, 9 were included in the meta-analysis, where it was shown a statistically significant in all axis I groups: (a) global TMD—groups I, II and III combined, N = 3829, SMD (95% CI) = 1.06 (0.65–1.51), p = 0.000; (b) group I—muscle disorders, N = 3,056, SMD (95% CI) = 0.82 (0.45–1.18), p = 0.000; (c) group II—disc displacements, N = 3,184, SMD (95% CI) = 0.59 (0.26–0.91), p = 0.000; and (d) group III—arthralgia/arthritis/arthrosis, N = 2781, SMD (95% CI) = 0.98 (0.59–1.36), p = 0.000. When compared to controls. Conclusions Quality of life is affected in all axis I TMD patients, especially in groups I and III with higher pain intensity and disability as compared to group II.


2019 ◽  
Vol 214 ◽  
pp. 141-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mana H. Vriesman ◽  
Shaman Rajindrajith ◽  
Ilan J.N. Koppen ◽  
Faridi S. van Etten- Jamaludin ◽  
Marieke van Dijk ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wimonchat Tangamornsuksan ◽  
Ornrat Lohitnavy ◽  
Chuenjid Kongkaew ◽  
Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk ◽  
Brad Reisfeld ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the association between HLA-B*5701 and abacavir-induced hypersensitivity reaction (ABC-HSR). METHODS: We searched for studies that investigated the association between HLA-B genotype and ABC-HSR and provided information about the frequency of carriers of HLA-B genotypes among cases and controls. We then performed a meta-analysis with a random-effects model to pool the data and to investigate the sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: From 1,026 articles identified, ten studies were included. Five using clinical manifestation as their diagnostic criteria, 409 and 1,883 subjects were included as cases and controls. Overall OR was 23.6 (95% CI = 15.4 – 36.3). Whereas, the another five studies using confirmed immunologic test as their diagnostic criteria, 110 and 1,968 subjects were included as cases and controls, respectively. The association of ABC-HSR was strong in this populations with HLA-B*5701. Overall OR was 1,056.2 (95% CI = 345.0 – 3,233.3). CONCLUSIONS: Using meta-analysis technique, the association between HLA-B*5701 and ABC-HSR is strong in the studies using immunologic confirmation to identify ABC-HSR. These results support the US FDA recommendations for screening HLA-B*5701 allele before initiating abacavir therapy.This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue’s contents page.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Emmett ◽  
Helen J. Close ◽  
Yan Yiannakou ◽  
James M. Mason

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document