Cited by 118Gastrointestinal motility and disordersFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchMicroscopic Colitis

Utility of red flag symptom exclusions in the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome

Open access
WHITEHEAD, W. E., PALSSON, O. S., FELD, A. D., LEVY, R. L., VON KORFF, M., TURNER, M. J., DROSSMAN, D. A.·2006·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Summary: Background: Studies suggest that the positive predictive value of the Rome II criteria for diagnosing irritable bowel syndrome can be enhanced by excluding red flag symptoms suggestive of organic diseases. Aim: We assessed the utility of red flags for detecting organic diseases in patients diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome by their physicians. Methods: Systematic chart reviews were completed in 1434 patients with clinical diagnoses of irritable bowel syndrome, abdominal pain, diarrhoea or constipation, who also completed questionnaires to identify Rome II criteria for irritable bowel syndrome and red flag symptoms. Results: The overall incidence of gastrointestinal cancer was 2.5% (but 1.0% in those with irritable bowel syndrome), for inflammatory bowel disease 2.0% (1.2% in irritable bowel syndrome), and for malabsorption 1.3% (0.7% in irritable bowel syndrome). Red flags were reported by 84% of the sample. The positive predictive value of individual red flags for identifying organic disease was 7–9%. Excluding any patient with a red flag improved the agreement between Rome II and clinical diagnosis by a modest 5%, but left 84% of patients who were diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome by their physicians, without a diagnosis. Conclusions: Red flags may be useful for identifying patients who require additional diagnostic evaluation, but incorporating them into the Rome criteria would not improve sensitivity and would result in too many missed irritable bowel syndrome diagnoses.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02956.x

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • The diagnostic performance of alarm symptoms or signs is modest, and up to 80% of patients with IBS in primary and secondary care will report at least one alarm symptom.

    “although the diagnostic performance of alarm symptoms or signs is modest, 122 and up to 80% of patients with IBS in primary and secondary care will report at least one alarm symptom.123”

    From British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of irritable bowel syndrome (2021) · cites this paper as [123]

    The citation is attached to the prevalence claim, not the preceding statement about diagnostic performance. The Gastroenterologists vs. primary care section (p. 6) reports that 84.3% of patients with a clinical IBS diagnosis in the combined primary-care and gastroenterology sample reported a red flag. This supports the general point, but the reported figure exceeds the claimed 'up to 80%' bound. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 14 · Cited by 118

Authors
WHITEHEAD, W. E., PALSSON, O. S., FELD, A. D., LEVY, R. L., VON KORFF, M., TURNER, M. J., & DROSSMAN, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Group Health Cooperative (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
WHITEHEAD, W. E.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-06-16
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
137-146
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
OpenAlex
W2051708726
Cited by
118
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK031369, R24 DK67674, R01 DK31369, R24DK067674)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Microscopic Colitis
Keywords
irritable bowel syndrome, red flag symptoms, Rome II criteria, diagnostic exclusion, gastrointestinal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, malabsorption, positive predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation
MeSH terms
Adult, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Records, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, 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