Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 492

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiology of constipation (EPOC) study in the United States: relation of clinical subtypes to sociodemographic features

Stewart, W·1999·The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Constipation is a common heterogeneous condition, possibly encompassing different clinical subtypes. Little is known about the comparative epidemiology of constipation subtypes. This study was conducted to estimate the prevalence of constipation subtypes and determine whether subtypes differ by sociodemographic factors. METHODS: Between June and September 1997, a telephone interview was conducted with individuals about their bowel habits in the preceding 3 months. Survey data on 15 constipation-related symptoms were used to identify individuals who met prespecified symptom criteria for the following mutually exclusive subgroups: functional constipation, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), outlet obstruction or delay (outlet), both IBS and outlet (IBS-outlet), and frequent laxative users (i.e., at least every other day). A total of 10,018 eligible individuals in the United States 18 yr of age or older completed the interview. Test-retest reliability of reporting symptoms was assessed in a separate national survey. The Spearman's correlation coefficient for reporting symptoms ranged from 0.54 to 0.83; all but three symptoms had correlations above 0.68. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of constipation was 14.7%. By subtype, prevalence was 4.6% for functional, 2.1% for IBS, 4.6% for outlet, and 3.4% for IBS-outlet. An additional 1.8% of respondents reported laxative use at least every other day. Outlet was the most common subtype among women, whereas functional constipation was the most common subtype among men. The gender ratio varied by subtype, with elevated ratios for outlet (F/M = 1.65) and IBS-outlet (F/M = 2.27) subtypes. The age pattern differed among each of the four subtypes. Prevalence of functional subtype decreased with increasing age. In contrast, outlet subtype did not seem to vary by age, and IBS (both men and women) and IBS-outlet (women only) subtypes increased to age 35 yr and declined thereafter. Prevalence of functional constipation increased with increasing education. Outlet type was more common in nonwhites compared to whites. Finally, 45% of individuals with constipation reported having the condition for 5 yr or more. CONCLUSIONS: Constipation is a heterogeneous condition. Differences in epidemiological profile by age, sex ratio, and relation to other sociodemographical factors support the distinction of two and possibly more symptom-based subtypes.

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 · 10.1016/s0002-9270(99)00701-7

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cited by

See all 492

Metadata

Authors
Stewart, W.
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
1999-12
Volume
94
Issue
12
Pages
3530-3540
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034447768
Cited by
492
References
4
FWCI
4.98
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

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.