A low frequency of post infection-IBS in patients attended in a tertiary referral center in México.

BACKGROUND: PI-IBS prevalence is around 10.1%-14.5% ≥ 12 months after infectious gastroenteritis in North America, Europe and Asia. However, there are no studies from Latin America. Two previous studies in Mexico suggest a low incidence of 5%. AIMS: to determine the prevalence of PI-IBS in patients attended in a tertiary-care center, as well as IBS subtypes, severity, other digestive symptoms and red flags vs nPI-IBS. METHODS: seventy IBS patients screened for immunological research completed the Rome III, Spiller's for PI-IBS and IBS-SSS questionnaires. PI-IBS prevalence was determined according to three criteria sets. C1: ≥ 2 episodes of sudden onset, onset while traveling, initial illness with any of the following symptoms, fever, vomiting, bloody diarrhea and a positive stool culture. C2: sudden onset and > 2 episodes of fever, diarrhea, vomiting and bloody diarrhea. C3: sudden onset after an infectious episode such as a positive culture or onset with ≥ 2 episodes of fever, vomiting, diarrhea, rectal bleeding and foreign travel. Items were dichotomized as present or absent and compared using the Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: PI-IBS prevalence was as follows. C1: 5.7%, C2: 0 and C3: 1.4%. There were no IBS-C or IBS-M cases. In the C1 group, one case was mild and three were moderate IBS, which was similar to the non PI-IBS group. One case in the C3 group had mild IBS. There were no differences in the frequency of esophageal, gastroduodenal, anorectal, bloating/distension and red flags between PI-IBS and non PI-IBS groups (analyzed only for C3). CONCLUSIONS: in Mexico, there is a very low prevalence of PI-IBS in patients from a tertiary-referral center. However, it varies according to the surrogate-criteria used. The later needs to be taken into account when performing PI-IBS studies.

Pictograms are more effective than verbal descriptors in Spanish for bloating and distension.

BACKGROUND: There is no translation for bloating in Spanish, and distension is very technical. AIMS: To evaluate pictograms for assessing bloating/distension in patients with general gastroenterology (Study 1, n = 88) and in those with irritable bowel syndrome [IBS] (Study 2: n = 144), and to correlate them with verbal descriptors (VDs) and physician's diagnosis (PDx). METHODS: Patients answered the Rome III Questionnaire with VDs and pictograms, and were consulted by two gastroenterology fellows (PDx). Correlations were conducted with Cohen's kappa, and ROC curves were used to contrast pictograms and VDs with PDx. RESULTS: "Inflammation" was the most frequent VDs, while distension was commonly interpreted as a sensation ("inflammation") and/or increased abdominal girth. In patients not reporting bloating/distension with VDs, pictograms detected these symptoms in (Study 1 and Study 2) 82.2 and 89.6% of patients. In addition, pictograms showed a positive agreement with PDx, kappa: 0.63 (p < 0.0001) and 0.8 (p < 0.0001); and a negative agreement with VD, kappa: -0.45 (p = 0.05) and -0.1 (p = 0.2), respectively, in studies 1 and 2. Pictograms were more sensitive and specific than VDs (Study 1: ROC = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.80-0.96), p < 0.0001 versus 0.74 (0.62-0.88), p < 0.0001; Study 2: 0.99 (0.98-1.00), p = 0.004 versus 0.32 (0.10-0.54), p = 0.294). CONCLUSIONS: Pictograms are more effective than Spanish VDs for bloating/distension in patients consulting for gastroenterology problems and those with IBS, supporting their usefulness in the clinic and research studies.