BACKGROUND: The classical definition of chronic diarrhoea is ≥3 defecations/day, with a stool weight of more than 200 g and duration of ≥4 weeks. However, with this definition many patients with substantial symptoms and pathology will be excluded from further investigations. As a consequence other definitions have been proposed, mainly based on evaluation of the stool form. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the classic criteria for diarrhoea in comparison with a definition based on stool consistency, using the Bristol Stool Form Scale. METHODS: All patients were investigated with laboratory tests, upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsies, and SeHCAT test. They were asked to complete a diary recording stool frequency and consistency during a week, as well as other gastrointestinal symptoms (pain, bloating and gas). RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine subjects were eligible for analysis. Ninety-one had an organic cause of diarrhoea. Fifty-three patients had ≥3 loose stools/day, whereas 86 reported <3 stools/day. Ninety had a median stool consistency that was mushy or loose and 49 had harder stools. A higher proportion of subjects with an organic cause of their diarrhoea compared with subjects with a functional bowel disorder had ≥3 loose stools/day, 43/91 (47%) vs. 10/48 (21%) (p < 0.01). Similarly, more subjects with an organic cause of their diarrhoea versus patients with a functional bowel disorder had a median stool consistency that was mushy or watery, 73/91 (80%) vs. 17/48 (35%), p < 0.0001. When diarrhoea was defined according to stool form, more patients were classified correctly as having a functional disorder or organic disorder, compared with the classical definition (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Loose stools defined according to the Bristol Stool Form scale seem to be the best predictor of having an organic cause of the diarrhoea.
BACKGROUND: The classical definition of chronic diarrhoea is ≥3 defecations/day, with a stool weight of more than 200 g and duration of ≥4 weeks. However, with this definition many patients with substantial symptoms and pathology will be excluded from further investigations. As a consequence other definitions have been proposed, mainly based on evaluation of the stool form. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the classic criteria for diarrhoea in comparison with a definition based on stool consistency, using the Bristol Stool Form Scale. METHODS: All patients were investigated with laboratory tests, upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy with biopsies, and SeHCAT test. They were asked to complete a diary recording stool frequency and consistency during a week, as well as other gastrointestinal symptoms (pain, bloating and gas). RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine subjects were eligible for analysis. Ninety-one had an organic cause of diarrhoea. Fifty-three patients had ≥3 loose stools/day, whereas 86 reported <3 stools/day. Ninety had a median stool consistency that was mushy or loose and 49 had harder stools. A higher proportion of subjects with an organic cause of their diarrhoea compared with subjects with a functional bowel disorder had ≥3 loose stools/day, 43/91 (47%) vs. 10/48 (21%) (p < 0.01). Similarly, more subjects with an organic cause of their diarrhoea versuspatients with a functional bowel disorder had a median stool consistency that was mushy or watery, 73/91 (80%) vs. 17/48 (35%), p < 0.0001. When diarrhoea was defined according to stool form, more patients were classified correctly as having a functional disorder or organic disorder, compared with the classical definition (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Loose stools defined according to the Bristol Stool Form scale seem to be the best predictor of having an organic cause of the diarrhoea.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diarrhoea; bile acid diarrhoe; definition of diarrhoea; investigation of diarrhoea; microscopic colitis
Authors: P Bytzer; M Stokholm; I Andersen; B Lund-Hansen; O B Schaffalitzky de Muckadell Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Richard J Saad; Satish S C Rao; Kenneth L Koch; Braden Kuo; Henry P Parkman; Richard W McCallum; Michael D Sitrin; Gregory E Wilding; Jack R Semler; William D Chey Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Paul Enck; Qasim Aziz; Giovanni Barbara; Adam D Farmer; Shin Fukudo; Emeran A Mayer; Beate Niesler; Eamonn M M Quigley; Mirjana Rajilić-Stojanović; Michael Schemann; Juliane Schwille-Kiuntke; Magnus Simren; Stephan Zipfel; Robin C Spiller Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Ramesh P Arasaradnam; Steven Brown; Alastair Forbes; Mark R Fox; Pali Hungin; Lawrence Kelman; Giles Major; Michelle O'Connor; Dave S Sanders; Rakesh Sinha; Stephen Charles Smith; Paul Thomas; Julian R F Walters Journal: Gut Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Daniel C Sadowski; Michael Camilleri; William D Chey; Grigorios I Leontiadis; John K Marshall; Eldon A Shaffer; Frances Tse; Julian R F Walters Journal: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol Date: 2019-12-06
Authors: Helena Harder; Valerie M Shilling; Shirley F May; David Cella; Peter Schmid; Lesley J Fallowfield Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Zhifei He; Ghose Bishwajit; Dongsheng Zou; Sanni Yaya; Zhaohui Cheng; Yan Zhou Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 3.390