No increase in prevalence of somatization in functional vs organic dyspepsia: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Psychological factors are associated with functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Literature suggests that somatization is associated with functional dyspepsia (FD). However, the relationship between organic dyspepsia (OD), FD, and FD subtypes and somatization is poorly described. We aimed to examine this issue in a cross-sectional study of secondary care patients. METHODS: Demographic and GI symptom data were collected from 4224 adult patients via the Rome III questionnaire. Somatization data were collected using the patient health questionnaire-12. Mean somatization score and number of somatic symptoms were compared between patients with organic and FD, and between FD subtypes using analysis of variance. The same comparison was undertaken for the proportion of patients reporting individual somatic symptoms. KEY RESULTS: Exactly, 783 patients met criteria for dyspepsia, of whom 231 (29.5%) had organic disease following upper GI endoscopy. Mean somatization scores and number of somatic symptoms were no higher in functional vs OD (p = 0.23; p = 0.19). In addition, while the prevalence of somatization in FD was relatively high, there was no difference in severity of somatization in FD subgroups. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Somatization is associated with functional and OD to the same degree. Overall severity of somatization did not appear to vary according to FD subtype.

Irritable bowel syndrome is significantly associated with somatisation in 840 patients, which may drive bloating.

BACKGROUND: Psychological factors may influence persistence and perceived severity of symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Literature suggests that somatisation is associated with IBS. However, the relationship between IBS subtype, symptoms of IBS and somatisation is unclear. AIM: To examine this issue in a large cohort of secondary care patients. METHODS: Demographic and gastrointestinal (GI) symptom data were collected from 4224 adult patients via the Rome III questionnaire. Somatisation data were collected using the patient health questionnaire-12. Mean somatisation score and number of somatic symptoms were compared between IBS patients and controls with minimal GI symptoms, and between IBS subtypes using analysis of variance. Effect of level of somatisation on symptom frequency was compared according to IBS subtype using a χ(2) test. RESULTS: 840 patients met Rome III criteria for IBS, controls were 2137 patients with GI symptoms without IBS. Mean somatisation scores and number of somatic symptoms were higher in IBS vs. controls (P < 0.001), and in mixed stool pattern IBS (IBS-M), vs. IBS with constipation (IBS-C) or diarrhoea (IBS-D) (P < 0.001). High levels of somatisation were more prevalent in IBS-M (31.7%) vs. IBS-C (22.5%) or IBS-D (20.8%) (P = 0.003). For all IBS subtypes, high levels of somatisation were associated with a greater frequency of bloating or abdominal distension prior to logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: IBS is strongly associated with higher levels of somatisation, particularly IBS-M. Bloating may be associated with higher levels of somatisation, perhaps explaining why it can be difficult to treat.

Characteristics of functional bowel disorder patients: a cross-sectional survey using the Rome III criteria.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence that, despite attempts to classify them separately, functional bowel disorders are not distinct entities and that such divisions are artificial. AIM: To examine this issue in a large cohort of secondary care patients. METHODS: Consecutive, unselected adults with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms attending out-patient clinics at two hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario were recruited. Demographic data, symptoms and presence of anxiety, depression or somatisation were collected prospectively. We used validated questionnaires, including the Rome III questionnaire, with patients categorised as having irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional diarrhoea or chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). We compared data between these disorders, and measured degree of overlap between them by suspending their mutual exclusivity. RESULTS: Of 3656 patients providing complete lower GI symptom data, 1551 (42.4%) met criteria for a functional bowel disorder. Diarrhoea-predominant IBS (IBS-D) patients were younger, and more were female, met criteria for anxiety, and reported somatisation-type behaviour, compared with functional diarrhoea. Only loose, mushy or watery stools were more common in functional diarrhoea. When mutual exclusivity was suspended, overlap occurred in 27.6%. Constipation-predominant IBS (IBS-C) patients were younger, and more were female, had never married, reported anxiety type symptoms and exhibited somatisation-type behaviour. One in five CIC patients reported abdominal pain or discomfort. All constipation symptoms were more common in IBS-C. When the mutual exclusivity was suspended, overlap occurred in 18.1%. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in demographics between individuals with functional bowel disorders. Despite this, the Rome III classification system falls short of describing unique entities.