CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 143Gastrointestinal motility and disordersGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

The clinical overlap between functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome based on Rome III criteria

Open access
WANG, AnJiang, LIAO, XianHua, XIONG, LiShou, PENG, Sui, XIAO, YingLian, LIU, SiChun, HU, PinJin, CHEN, MinHu·2008·BMC Gastroenterology
DOI 10.1186/1471-230x-8-43PMC PMC2569040
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Epidemiological studies suggest considerable overlap between functional dyspepsia (FD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). To date, no surveys have been performed to investigate the clinical overlap between these two disorders using Rome III criteria. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence and risk factors for the overlap of FD and IBS based on Rome III criteria in a large clinical sample. Methods: Consecutive patients at the general gastroenterology outpatient clinic were requested to complete a self-report questionnaire. FD and IBS were defined by Rome III criteria. Results: Questionnaires were returned by 3014 patients (52.8% female, 89% response rate). FD-IBS overlap was observed in 5.0% of the patients, while 15.2% and 10.9% of the patients were classified as FD alone and IBS alone, respectively. Compared with non-IBS patients, the odds ratio of having FD among IBS patients was 2.09 (95% CI: 1.68–2.59). Patients with FD-IBS overlap had higher severity scores for the postprandial fullness symptom (2.35 ± 1.49 vs. 1.72 ± 1.59, P < 0.001) and overall FD symptom (6.65 ± 2.88 vs. 5.82 ± 2.76, P = 0.002) than those with FD alone. The only independent risk factor for FD-IBS overlap vs. FD alone was the presence of postprandial fullness symptom (OR 2.67, 95% CI: 1.34–5.31). Conclusion: Clinical overlap of FD and IBS according to Rome III criteria is very common. One risk factor for FD-IBS overlap is the presence of postprandial fullness symptom. This study provides clues for future pathophysiological studies of FD and IBS.

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 · 10.1186/1471-230x-8-43

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • In 3,014 patients attending a GI clinic, 24.8% of FD patients and 31.5% of IBS patients fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of the other disorder.

    “Another study that used the Rome III criteria found, in 3,014 patients attending a GI clinic, that 24.8% of FD patients and 31.5% of IBS patients fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of the other disorder.12”

    From Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Co-morbid Gastrointestinal and Extra-gastrointestinal Functional Syndromes (2010) · cites this paper as [12]

  • IBS patients have been reported to have lower, rather than higher, thresholds for somatic stimulation.

    “Although IBS patients have been reported to have lower, rather than higher thresholds for somatic stimulation,11,12”

    From Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Co-morbid Gastrointestinal and Extra-gastrointestinal Functional Syndromes (2010) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Results compare symptom scores for patients with IBS alone and those with FD–IBS overlap, while the Discussion addresses gastric emptying and sensitivity to gastric distention. Neither reports thresholds for somatic stimulation in IBS patients. Searches for the quoted threshold claim and for somatic pain sensitivity found no passage addressing it. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
WANG, A., LIAO, X., XIONG, L., PENG, S., XIAO, Y., LIU, S., HU, P., & CHEN, M.
Affiliations
Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
Corresponding author
CHEN, MinHu
ORCID
Venue
BMC Gastroenterology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008-09-23
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
43-43
ISSN
1471-230X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-230x-8-43
PMC
PMC2569040
OpenAlex
W1988429445
Cited by
143
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
10.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Gastroenterology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastroesophageal reflux and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
functional dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, Rome III criteria, postprandial fullness, symptom severity, risk factors, prevalence, functional gastrointestinal disorders
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, China, Dyspepsia, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Prevalence, Multivariate Analysis, 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