OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of pediatric functional gastrointestinal disorders with the use of the Rome II criteria and to compare these data with the classic Iowa criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Patients recorded defecation and encopresis frequency. A standard history was taken and a physical examination including a rectal examination was done. The prevalence of both criteria was assessed and compared. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight consecutive patients (age, 0.66 to 15.76 years; 131 male subjects) were included. According to the Rome II criteria, 64%, 18%, and 21% of patients fulfilled the criteria for functional constipation, functional fecal retention, and functional nonretentive fecal soiling, respectively. Using the classic criteria, 74% and 18% of patients fulfilled the criteria for pediatric constipation and solitary encopresis, respectively; 16% of the patients fulfilling the pediatric constipation criteria were not recognized by the Rome II constipation criteria. Fair agreement was found between functional nonretentive fecal soiling and solitary encopresis. Encopresis was present in 79% of constipated children. CONCLUSIONS: The Rome criteria are restrictive and exclude several children with constipation. We recommend including encopresis and rectal digital examination and excluding arbitrary age limits and retentive behavior in the revision of the Rome criteria.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of pediatric functional gastrointestinal disorders with the use of the Rome II criteria and to compare these data with the classic Iowa criteria. STUDY DESIGN:Patients recorded defecation and encopresis frequency. A standard history was taken and a physical examination including a rectal examination was done. The prevalence of both criteria was assessed and compared. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight consecutive patients (age, 0.66 to 15.76 years; 131 male subjects) were included. According to the Rome II criteria, 64%, 18%, and 21% of patients fulfilled the criteria for functional constipation, functional fecal retention, and functional nonretentive fecal soiling, respectively. Using the classic criteria, 74% and 18% of patients fulfilled the criteria for pediatric constipation and solitary encopresis, respectively; 16% of the patients fulfilling the pediatric constipation criteria were not recognized by the Rome II constipation criteria. Fair agreement was found between functional nonretentive fecal soiling and solitary encopresis. Encopresis was present in 79% of constipatedchildren. CONCLUSIONS: The Rome criteria are restrictive and exclude several children with constipation. We recommend including encopresis and rectal digital examination and excluding arbitrary age limits and retentive behavior in the revision of the Rome criteria.
Authors: Giuseppe Chiarioni; Giuseppe de Roberto; Alessandro Mazzocchi; Antonio Morelli; Gabrio Bassotti Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2005-10-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Fleur de Lorijn; Rick R van Rijn; Jarom Heijmans; Johannes B Reitsma; Wieger P Voskuijl; Onno D F Henneman; Jan A Taminiau; Marc A Benninga Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2005-11-10