CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Gastrointestinal motility and disordersEndometriosis Research and TreatmentPelvic floor disorders treatments

Recognition and treatment of irritable bowel syndrome among women with chronic pelvic pain

Williams, Rachel E., Hartmann, Katherine E., Sandler, Robert S., Miller, William C., Savitz, Lucy A., Steege, John F.·2005·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.634
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective We sought to describe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) treatment among women with chronic pelvic pain. Study design We performed a cross-sectional study of new chronic pelvic pain patients between 1993 and 2000 (n = 987). IBS was defined by Rome I criteria. IBS treatment was defined as lower gastrointestinal drugs or referral. Analyses were descriptive and multivariable. Results IBS occurred in 35% of patients. In the highest quartile of pain, women with IBS were not more likely to have IBS treatment initiated. In the lowest three quarters of pain, women with IBS were 5.08 times more likely to have IBS treatment initiated. IBS was not diagnosed 40% of the time. IBS treatments were not recommended to 67% of patients with IBS. More than 35% of patients were prescribed narcotics. Conclusion IBS is not consistently diagnosed and treated even in a pelvic pain clinic. Yet, treatment of IBS may reduce the overall abdominal pain of these patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.634

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • Williams et al. studied 987 new patients referred to a CPP clinic and reported that 35% met the Rome I criteria for IBS, although IBS was not diagnosed previously in 40% of these patients.

    “Williams et al.41 studied 987 new patients referred to a CPP clinic and reported that 35% met the Rome I criteria for IBS, although IBS was not diagnosed previously in 40% of these patients.”

    From Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Co-morbid Gastrointestinal and Extra-gastrointestinal Functional Syndromes (2010) · cites this paper as [41]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Williams, R. E., Hartmann, K. E., Sandler, R. S., Miller, W. C., Savitz, L. A., & Steege, J. F.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Williams, Rachel E.
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-03
Volume
192
Issue
3
Pages
761-767
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.634
OpenAlex
W2037648379
Cited by
59
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
Keywords
irritable bowel syndrome, chronic pelvic pain, women, IBS diagnosis, IBS treatment, Rome I criteria, abdominal pain
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Gastrointestinal Agents, Humans, Pelvic Pain, Irritable Bowel Syndrome

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