Search

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) clusters in families, but previous studies documented family history only from patients. We have shown that patient-relative agreement on IBS status is poor. Thus, we conducted a family case-control study with direct survey of symptoms from family members to better quantitate the aggregation of IBS in families. The aims of this study were to (i) compare the prevalence of IBS in case-relatives with control-relatives, and (ii) determine whether gender, relationship, predominant symptom, and environmental risk factors affect familial aggregation.Outpatients with IBS, matched controls, and their first-degree relatives completed a bowel symptom questionnaire. Percent of cases and controls with a family history were compared and odds ratios were computed using chi(2)-test; recurrence risks to relatives were computed using logistic regression and generalized estimating equations.Data were collected from 477 cases, 297 controls, 1,492 case-relatives, and 936 control-relatives. Probands had a median age of 50 and 78% were women. 50% of case and 27% of control families had at least another relative with IBS yielding an odds ratio of 2.75 (95% CI: 2.01-3.76, P0.0001). When aggregation estimates were reevaluated stratifying by relative relationship or proband gender, generational and gender effects were not observed. Familial clustering by bowel habit was weakest for diarrhea, and strongest for alternating bowel habits.IBS aggregates strongly in families. The strength of the association does vary somewhat by relationship to proband, but the lack of association in spouses supports either a possible genetic etiology or a shared household environmental exposure as an underlying cause of IBS.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) runs in families. Prior family studies surveyed patients inquiring about family history without surveying family members. The stigma associated with IBS may lead relatives to not share information with others, resulting in underestimates of familial aggregation of IBS. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of patient-report of family history of IBS in cases and controls, and to estimate familial aggregation of IBS using both a case–control and a family-study design. Fifty cases and 53 controls completed symptom questionnaires and provided contact information for first-degree relatives. Questionnaires were mailed to relatives. Relatives were considered to have IBS if they met Rome criteria and did not have an alternate GI diagnosis. Cases and controls identified 573 relatives in their families. A total of 202 (51%) of 396 living relatives participated. The kappa statistics between proband- and relative-reported IBS for case- and control-relatives were 0.27 and 0.04. Cases reported 21% of relatives had IBS; relative-reports showed 37% (P = 0.003). Controls reported 4% of relatives had IBS; relative-reports showed 16% (P = 0.013). Regardless of whether the proband or the relative themselves were the information source, case-relatives were threefold as likely to have IBS than control-relatives (P < 0.05). However, overall rates were higher when data collected from relatives were used. Regardless of approach, strong familial aggregation of IBS was observed. Cases and controls underestimated the frequency of IBS in their relatives and agreement between proband- and relative-report of IBS status was extremely poor, thus emphasizing the need for direct data collection from relatives in IBS family studies.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Advanced Life Support (ALS) Task Force performed detailed systematic reviews based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies1 and using the methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group.2 Questions to be addressed (using the PICO [population, intervention, comparator, outcome] format)3 were prioritized by ALS Task Force members (by voting). Prioritization criteria included awareness of significant new data and new controversies or questions about practice. Questions about topics no longer relevant to contemporary practice or where little new research has occurred were given lower priority. The ALS Task Force prioritized 42 PICO questions for review. With the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). By using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were screened for further evaluation. The reviewers for each question created a reconciled risk of bias assessment for each of the included studies, using state-of-the-art tools: Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs),4 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 for studies of diagnostic accuracy,5 and GRADE for observational studies that inform both therapy and prognosis questions.6 GRADE evidence profile tables7 were then created to facilitate an evaluation of the evidence in support of each of the critical and important outcomes. The quality of the evidence (or confidence in the estimate of the effect) was categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low,8 based on the study methodologies and the 5 core GRADE domains of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and other considerations (including publication bias).9 These evidence profile tables were then used to create a …