BACKGROUND: Retrospective questionnaires are frequently used for symptom assessment in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients, but are influenced by recall bias and circumstantial and psychological factors. These limitations may be overcome by random, repeated, momentary assessment during the day, using electronic Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM). Therefore, we compared symptom assessment by ESM to retrospective paper questionnaires in IBS patients. METHODS: Twenty-six IBS patients (Rome III) were included, of which 16 were diagnosed with panic disorder (DSM-IV-TR). Patients scored symptoms using end-of-day diaries during 14 days and the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS) once. ESM was used on seven consecutive days during the same time period. KEY RESULTS: End-of-day diary abdominal pain scores were 0.4 (SE 0.1, p < 0.001) point higher (on a 1-to-5-point scale) compared to corresponding ESM mean-scores in IBS patients. The difference was even more pronounced for upper abdominal pain scores assessed by the GSRS (4.77 ± 1.50) compared to ESM mean-scores (2.44 ± 1.30, p < 0.001), both on 1-to-7-point scale. For flatulence, comparable results were found. Nausea and belching scores showed small, but significant differences between end-of-day diary and ESM. All tested symptoms were scored higher on GSRS compared to ESM mean-scores (p < 0.01). Affective comorbidity did not influence differences in pain reporting between methods. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: IBS patients report higher scores for abdominal pain in retrospective questionnaires compared to ESM, with a tendency to report peak rather than average pain scores. ESM can provide more insight in symptom course and potential triggers, and may lead to a better understanding of IBS symptomatology.
BACKGROUND: Retrospective questionnaires are frequently used for symptom assessment in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients, but are influenced by recall bias and circumstantial and psychological factors. These limitations may be overcome by random, repeated, momentary assessment during the day, using electronic Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM). Therefore, we compared symptom assessment by ESM to retrospective paper questionnaires in IBSpatients. METHODS: Twenty-six IBSpatients (Rome III) were included, of which 16 were diagnosed with panic disorder (DSM-IV-TR). Patients scored symptoms using end-of-day diaries during 14 days and the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS) once. ESM was used on seven consecutive days during the same time period. KEY RESULTS: End-of-day diary abdominal pain scores were 0.4 (SE 0.1, p < 0.001) point higher (on a 1-to-5-point scale) compared to corresponding ESM mean-scores in IBSpatients. The difference was even more pronounced for upper abdominal pain scores assessed by the GSRS (4.77 ± 1.50) compared to ESM mean-scores (2.44 ± 1.30, p < 0.001), both on 1-to-7-point scale. For flatulence, comparable results were found. Nausea and belching scores showed small, but significant differences between end-of-day diary and ESM. All tested symptoms were scored higher on GSRS compared to ESM mean-scores (p < 0.01). Affective comorbidity did not influence differences in pain reporting between methods. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: IBSpatients report higher scores for abdominal pain in retrospective questionnaires compared to ESM, with a tendency to report peak rather than average pain scores. ESM can provide more insight in symptom course and potential triggers, and may lead to a better understanding of IBS symptomatology.
Authors: Martijn P G Broen; Vera A M Marsman; Mark L Kuijf; Robert J Van Oostenbrugge; Jim van Os; Albert F G Leentjens Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Leticia Delgado-Herrera; Kathryn Lasch; Bernhardt Zeiher; Anthony J Lembo; Douglas A Drossman; Benjamin Banderas; Kathleen Rosa; Christopher Lademacher; Rob Arbuckle Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Lisa Vork; Zlatan Mujagic; Marjan Drukker; Daniel Keszthelyi; José M Conchillo; Martine A M Hesselink; Jim van Os; Ad A M Masclee; Carsten Leue; Joanna W Kruimel Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Anne E P Mulders; Rachel M J van der Velden; Marjan Drukker; Martijn P G Broen; Mark L Kuijf; Albert F G Leentjens Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2020-05-30 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: E C Martin; C Leue; P Delespaul; F Peeters; A M L Janssen; R Lousberg; A Erdkamp; S van de Weijer; J Widdershoven; H Blom; T Bruintjes; A Zwergal; E Grill; N Guinand; A Perez-Fornos; M R van de Berg; J J A Stultiens; H Kingma; R van de Berg Journal: J Neurol Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Emily B Hollister; Kevin C Cain; Robert J Shulman; Monica E Jarrett; Robert L Burr; Cynthia Ko; Jasmine Zia; Claire J Han; Margaret M Heitkemper Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.174
Authors: Simone J W Verhagen; Juliënne A Berben; Carsten Leue; Anne Marsman; Philippe A E G Delespaul; Jim van Os; Richel Lousberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lisa Vork; Daniel Keszthelyi; Sander M J van Kuijk; Emilio G Quetglas; Hans Törnblom; Magnus Simrén; Qasim Aziz; Maura Corsetti; Jan Tack; Zlatan Mujagic; Carsten Leue; Joanna W Kruimel; Ad A M Masclee Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 4.396