Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 186

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Symptoms in chronic constipation

Koch, Alexander, Voderholzer, Winfried A., Klauser, Andreas G., Müller-Lissner, Stefan·1997·Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate whether detailed symptom analysis would help to identify pathophysiologic subgroups in chronic constipation. METHODS: In 190 patients with chronic constipation (age, 53 (range, 18-88) years; 85 percent of whom were women), symptom evaluation, transit time measurement (radiopaque markers), and functional rectoanal evaluation (proctoscopy, anorectal manometry, defecography) were performed. Patients were classified on the basis of objective data from all tests in four different groups ("disordered defecation," "slow gastrointestinal transit," "disordered defecation combined with slow-transit stool," and "no pathologic finding"). RESULTS: In 59 percent of patients, disordered defecation was found, and 27 percent had slow-transit stool. In 6 percent of patients, a combination of both was found; in only 8 percent of patients, there were no pathologic findings. Straining was reported by the vast majority in all groups (82-94 percent). Infrequent bowel movements and abdominal bloating were more common in slow-transit stool (87 and 82 percent vs. 69 and 55 percent, respectively; both P < 0.01). Feeling of incomplete evacuation was more common in disordered defecation (84 vs. 46 percent; P < 0.0001). However, specificity of these symptoms was discouraging (for slow-transit stool: infrequent bowel movements had a sensitivity of 87 percent and a specificity of 32 percent and abdominal bloating had a sensitivity of 82 percent and specificity of 45 percent; for disordered defecation: feeling of incomplete evacuation had a sensitivity of 84 percent and a specificity of 54 percent). Only the sense of obstruction and digital maneuvers were acceptably specific (79 and 85 percent, respectively) for disordered defecation, but sensitivity was low. CONCLUSIONS: Definition of chronic constipation by infrequent bowel movements alone is of little value; the symptom "necessity to strain" is much better suited (94 percent sensitivity). Specificity of infrequent bowel movements for slow-transit stool was discouraging. Sense of obstruction and digital manipulation for evacuation are relatively specific for disordered defecation but insensitive. Therefore, symptoms of chronically constipated patients are not well suited to differentiate between the pathophysiologic subgroups suffering chronic constipation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02051196

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 186

Metadata

Authors
Koch, A., Voderholzer, W. A., Klauser, A. G., & Müller-Lissner, S.
Venue
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
Published
1997-08
Volume
40
Issue
8
Pages
902-906
ISSN
0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065735588
Cited by
186
References
1
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Symptoms in chronic constipation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf02051196
The paper
Koch, A., Voderholzer, W. A., Klauser, A. G., & Müller-Lissner, S. (1997). Symptoms in chronic constipation. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02051196

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.