Search

Introduction: Gastrointestinal symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have been correlated with psychological factors using retrospective symptom assessment. However, real-time symptom assessment might reveal the interplay between abdominal and affective symptoms more reliably in a longitudinal perspective. The aim was to evaluate the association between stress and abdominal pain, using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) as a real-time, repeated measurement method., Methods: Thirty-seven patients with IBS (26 women; mean age 36.7 years) and 36 healthy controls (HC; 24 women; mean age 31.1 years) completed an electronic ESM during 7 consecutive days. Abdominal pain and stress were scored on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale at a maximum of 10 random moments each day., Results: Abdominal pain scores were 2.21 points higher in patients with IBS compared with those in HC (P < 0.001), whereas stress levels did not differ significantly (B: 0.250, P = 0.406). In IBS, a 1-point increase in stress was associated with, on average, 0.10 points increase in abdominal pain (P = 0.017). In HC, this was only 0.02 (P = 0.002). Stress levels at t = -1 were not a significant predictor for abdominal pain at t = 0 in both groups, and vice versa., Discussion: Our results demonstrate a positive association between real-time stress and abdominal pain scores and indicate a difference in response to stress and not a difference in experienced stress per se. Furthermore, an in-the-moment rather than a longitudinal association is suggested. This study underlines the importance of considering the individual flow of daily life and supports the use of real-time measurement when interpreting potential influencers of abdominal symptoms in IBS.

Background and Objectives: The majority of patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are diagnosed and treated in primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate the implementation of the Rome criteria in daily primary care clinical practice and adherence of general practitioners (GPs) to recommended diagnostic approaches for IBS., Patients and Methods: A survey consisting of 18 questions was distributed across 11 European countries and was used to assess GPs' diagnostic approach of IBS, the use of Rome criteria in daily practice and GPs' perspective on the aetiology of the disorder., Results: Overall, 185 GPs completed the survey. In daily clinical practice, 32% of GPs reported that they usually make a positive diagnosis on the basis of symptoms only, whereas 36% of GPs reported regular use of the Rome criteria to diagnose IBS. Furthermore, 62% of the responders reported that they applied additional diagnostics, such as blood tests, 31% found it necessary to perform endoscopy to make a positive diagnosis of IBS and 29% referred patients with IBS to a specialist. Psychological factors were the most frequently selected potential aetiological factor of IBS (88% of GPs). Overall, 52% of GPs reported systematically including questions on psychological symptoms in the assessment of history of IBS., Conclusion: Only about one-third of GPs regularly used the Rome criteria to diagnose IBS. In daily primary care practice, IBS largely remains a diagnosis of exclusion. This has implications in terms of GPs' specialty training and questions the applicability of IBS guidelines in daily care, which advocate an early, positive, symptom-based diagnosis.

Background: Consensus on standard methods to assess chronic abdominal pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is currently lacking., Aim: To systematically review the literature with respect to instruments of measurement of chronic abdominal pain in IBS patients., Methods: Systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline databases for studies using pain measurement instruments in patients with IBS., Results: One hundred and ten publications were reviewed. A multitude of different instruments is currently used to assess chronic abdominal pain in IBS patients. The single-item methods, e.g. the validated 10-point numeric rating scale (NRS), and questionnaires assessing gastrointestinal symptoms severity, focus mostly on the assessment of only the intensity of abdominal pain. Of these questionnaires, the validated IBS-Symptom Severity Scale includes the broadest measurement of pain-related aspects. General pain questionnaires and electronic momentary symptom assessment tools have been used to study abdominal pain in IBS patients, but have not yet been validated for this purpose. The evidence for the use of provocation tests, e.g. the rectal barostat with balloon distention, for measurement of abdominal pain in IBS is weak, due to the poor correlation between visceral pain thresholds assessed by provocation tests and abdominal pain as assessed by retrospective questionnaires., Conclusions: The multitude of different instruments to measure chronic abdominal pain in IBS makes it difficult to compare endpoints of published studies. There is need for validated instruments to assess chronic abdominal pain in IBS patients, that overcome the limitations of the currently available methods., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Summary: Background: Abdominal pain is highly prevalent in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in remission, but the aetiology is incompletely understood. Aim: To investigate the association of clinical, lifestyle and psychosocial factors with abdominal pain in patients with IBD in remission. Methods: We performed a prospective multicentre study enrolling consecutive patients with IBD. Data were collected between 1 January 2020 and 1 July 2021, using myIBDcoach, an established remote monitoring platform for IBD. Chronic abdominal pain in IBD in remission (IBDremissionPain+) was defined as abdominal pain score ≥3 (0–10 NRS) on ≥1/3 of all assessments, combined with faecal calprotectin <150 μg/g in 90 days around periodic assessments. Disease activity, lifestyle and psychosocial factors were assessed every 1–3 months during 18 months. Using linear mixed models, the association of these factors with abdominal pain over time was analysed. Results: We included 559 patients, of whom 429 (76.7%) remained in biochemical remission. Of these, 198 (46.2%) fulfilled the criteria for chronic abdominal pain. IBDremissionPain+ patients were characterised by female sex, younger age, higher BMI, and shorter disease duration. They reported more often or higher levels of stress, fatigue, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and life events (all p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, sex, disease entity, fatigue, depressive symptoms and life events were associated with abdominal pain over time (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: In this cohort of patients with IBD in remission, abdominal pain was common and associated with psychosocial factors. A more holistic treatment approach for patients with IBD suffering from abdominal pain may improve quality of care and subjective wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: End‐of‐day questionnaires, which are considered the gold standard for assessing abdominal pain and other gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), are influenced by recall and ecological bias. The experience sampling method (ESM) is characterized by random and repeated assessments in the natural state and environment of a subject, and herewith overcomes these limitations. This report describes the development of a patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) based on the ESM principle, taking into account content validity and cross‐cultural adaptation. Methods: Focus group interviews with IBS patients and expert meetings with international experts in the fields of neurogastroenterology & motility and pain were performed in order to select the items for the PROM. Forward‐and‐back translation and cognitive interviews were performed to adapt the instrument for the use in different countries and to assure on patients’ understanding with the final items. Key results: Focus group interviews revealed 42 items, categorized into five domains: physical status, defecation, mood and psychological factors, context and environment, and nutrition and drug use. Experts reduced the number of items to 32 and cognitive interviewing after translation resulted in a few slight adjustments regarding linguistic issues, but not regarding content of the items. Conclusions and Inferences: An ESM‐based PROM, suitable for momentary assessment of IBS symptom patterns was developed, taking into account content validity and cross‐cultural adaptation. This PROM will be implemented in a specifically designed smartphone application and further validation in a multicenter setting will follow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The Rome criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have been revised and are expected to apply only to the subset of Rome III IBS subjects with abdominal pain as predominant symptom, occurring at least once a week. The aim of this study was to determine the percentage of Rome III IBS subjects that fulfills Rome IV criteria and to evaluate differences between Rome IV‐positive and Rome IV‐negative subjects. Methods: Four hundred and four Rome III IBS subjects completed a 14‐day end‐of‐day symptom diary, the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and RAND 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36). Diary‐based surrogate Rome IV criteria were defined as occurrence of abdominal pain at least 1 day each week with a severity of ≥2 (mild; definition 1) or ≥3 (considerable; definition 2). Key Results: Using surrogate Rome IV criteria, 353 (87.4%, definition 1) and 249 (61.6%, definition 2) subjects were defined as Rome IV positive. These patients were more often female, younger, and recruited from secondary/tertiary care compared with Rome IV‐negative subjects. They also presented with higher abdominal pain scores and gastrointestinal (GI) symptom severity on both end‐of‐day diary and GSRS, higher psychological symptom scores, and lower quality of life compared with Rome IV‐negative subjects. Conclusions and Inferences: The Rome IV IBS population likely reflects a subgroup of Rome III IBS patients with more severe GI symptomatology, psychological comorbidities, and lower quality of life. This implies that results from Rome III IBS studies may not be directly comparable to those from Rome IV IBS populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Retrospective questionnaires are frequently used for symptom assessment in irritable bowel syndrome ( IBS) patients, but are influenced by recall bias and circumstantial and psychological factors. These limitations may be overcome by random, repeated, momentary assessment during the day, using electronic Experience Sampling Methodology ( ESM). Therefore, we compared symptom assessment by ESM to retrospective paper questionnaires in IBS patients. Methods Twenty-six IBS patients (Rome III) were included, of which 16 were diagnosed with panic disorder ( DSM- IV- TR). Patients scored symptoms using end-of-day diaries during 14 days and the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale ( GSRS) once. ESM was used on seven consecutive days during the same time period. Key Results End-of-day diary abdominal pain scores were 0.4 ( SE 0.1, p < 0.001) point higher (on a 1-to-5-point scale) compared to corresponding ESM mean-scores in IBS patients. The difference was even more pronounced for upper abdominal pain scores assessed by the GSRS (4.77 ± 1.50) compared to ESM mean-scores (2.44 ± 1.30, p < 0.001), both on 1-to-7-point scale. For flatulence, comparable results were found. Nausea and belching scores showed small, but significant differences between end-of-day diary and ESM. All tested symptoms were scored higher on GSRS compared to ESM mean-scores ( p < 0.01). Affective comorbidity did not influence differences in pain reporting between methods. Conclusions & Inferences IBS patients report higher scores for abdominal pain in retrospective questionnaires compared to ESM, with a tendency to report peak rather than average pain scores. ESM can provide more insight in symptom course and potential triggers, and may lead to a better understanding of IBS symptomatology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]