Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 781

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The prevalence, patterns and impact of irritable bowel syndrome: an international survey of 40 000 subjects

Hungin, A. P. S., Whorwell, P. J., Tack, J., Mearin, F.·2003·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01456.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: Aim : To determine the prevalence, symptom pattern and impact of the irritable bowel syndrome, across eight European countries, using a standardized methodology. Methods : A community survey of 41 984 individuals was performed using quota sampling and random digit telephone dialling to identify those with diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome or those meeting diagnostic criteria, followed by in‐depth interviews. Results : The overall prevalence was 11.5% (6.2–12%); 9.6% had current symptoms, 4.8% had been formally diagnosed and a further 2.9%, 4.2% and 6.5% met the Rome II, Rome I or Manning criteria, respectively. Bowel habit classification varied by criteria: 63% had an ‘alternating’ bowel habit by Rome II vs. 21% by self‐report. On average, 69% reported symptoms lasting for 1 h, twice daily, for 7 days a month. Irritable bowel syndrome sufferers reported more peptic ulcer (13% vs. 6%), reflux (21% vs. 7%) and appendectomy (17% vs. 11%), but not hysterectomy, cholecystectomy or bladder procedures. Ninety per cent had consulted in primary care and 17% in hospital; 69% had used medication. Irritable bowel syndrome substantially interfered with lifestyle and caused absenteeism. Conclusions : Irritable bowel syndrome is common with major effects on lifestyle and health care. The majority of cases are undiagnosed and the prevalence varies strikingly between countries. Diagnostic criteria are associated with varying prevalences and bowel habit sub‐types. This limits their utility in clinical practice and the transferability of research findings using them.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01456.x

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hungin, A. P. S., Whorwell, P. J., Tack, J., & Mearin, F.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-02-28
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
643-650
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01456.x
OpenAlex
W1963986741
Cited by
781
References
5
FWCI
25.01
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.