Cited by 35Gastrointestinal motility and disordersSports Performance and TrainingLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies

Frequency of Chronic Gastrointestinal Distress in Runners: Validity and Reliability of a Retrospective Questionnaire

Wilson, Patrick B.·2017·International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism

Abstract

Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms may affect up to 90% of competitors during endurance races. Studies have typically assessed GI symptoms retrospectively or only over an acute timeframe, and information on the validity and reliability of the questionnaires employed is lacking. This investigation aimed to estimate the frequency of GI distress experienced by runners over 30 days and to establish the validity and reliability of a retrospective GI symptom questionnaire. Runners (70 men, 75 women) recorded GI symptoms with a prospective journal for 30 days. Retrospective GI symptom data were then collected after the 30-day period on two occasions within one week. GI symptoms were rated on a 0-10 scale. Descriptive statistics for GI symptoms are reported as medians (interquartile ranges) because of nonnormal distributions. Men and women experienced at least one GI symptom on 84.0% (59.8-95.1%) and 78.3% (50.0-95.2%) of runs, respectively. Moderate-to-severe GI symptoms (score of ≥5) were experienced on 13.8% (6.7-37.3%) and 21.7% (5.3-41.2%) of runs for men and women. Spearman's rho correlations between journal ratings and retrospective questionnaire ratings ranged from 0.47 to 0.82 (all p < .001), although they were highest when journal ratings were quantified as mean 30-day values (all rho ≥ 0.59). Reliability of the retrospective questionnaire ratings was high (rho = 0.78-0.92; p < .001). In comparison with tracking GI symptoms with a daily journal, retrospective questionnaires see…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1123/ijsnem.2016-0305

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • GIS scores from Likert scales are often right-skewed, yet most studies used parametric analytical approaches that may be inappropriate for non-normally distributed data from small sample sizes.

    “For example, GIS scores from Likert scales are often right‐skewed (Wilson 2017), yet most studies used parametric analytical approaches that may be inappropriate for non‐normally distributed data from small sample sizes.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilson, P. B.
Affiliations
Old Dominion University (US)
Corresponding author
Wilson, Patrick B.
Venue
International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism
Published
2017-08
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
370-376
ISSN
  • 1526-484X (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-2742
OpenAlex
W2593297191
Cited by
35
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Keywords
gastrointestinal distress, runners, endurance running, questionnaire validity, questionnaire reliability, sex differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Gastrointestinal Diseases, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Running, Reproducibility of Results

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