Cited by 686Gastrointestinal motility and disordersPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsGut microbiota and health

Irritable bowel syndrome and dyspepsia in the general population: Overlap and lack of stability over time

Agréus, Lars, Svärdsudd, Kurt, Nyrén, Olof, Tibblin, Gösta·1995·Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background & aims It has been suggested that irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and functional dyspepsia represent the same disease entity, the irritable gut. The aim of this study was to test the stability, consistency, and relevance of the current classification in the entire, unselected population of persons with gastrointestinal and/or abdominal symptoms, including those who had not consulted physicians. Methods Sequential postal questionnaires were sent to 1290 representative persons (age range, 20-79 years) sampled from the population. Questions were asked about the prevalence of 24 gastrointestinal and/or abdominal symptoms and the site and type of abdominal pain, if any. Results The prevalence of dyspepsia was 14% (32% if predominant reflux symptoms and concomitant IBS symptoms were included), and the prevalence of IBS was 12.5%. The 3-month incidence rates of reflux, dyspepsia, and IBS among previously symptomless persons were 0.5, 8, and 2 per 1000, respectively. Of persons with IBS, 87% also fulfilled the dyspepsia criteria, and the overlap between dyspepsia subgroups was more than 50%. The use of stricter criteria did not eliminate this overlap. Over a 1-year period, approximately 50% changed their symptom profile. Principal component analysis did not show any natural clustering of the symptoms. Conclusions The separation of functional gastrointestinal symptoms into dyspepsia, its subgroups, and IBS may be inappropriate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0016-5085(95)90373-9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agréus, L., Svärdsudd, K., Nyrén, O., & Tibblin, G.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-09
Volume
109
Issue
3
Pages
671-680
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998351388
Cited by
686
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 26
FWCI
23.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, disease classification, symptom overlap, symptom stability, prevalence, reflux symptoms, abdominal pain, functional gastrointestinal symptoms, incidence, general population
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Colonic Diseases, Functional, Dyspepsia, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Gastroesophageal Reflux, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Population Surveillance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sweden, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Incidence, Prevalence, Multivariate Analysis, Cluster Analysis, Chi-Square Distribution, Linear Models

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