Gastric motility and pulmonary function in children with functional abdominal pain disorders and asthma: A pathophysiological study.

BACKGROUND: An association has been shown between functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs) and asthma. However, the exact reason for this association is obscured. The main objective of this study is to identify the possible underlying pathophysiological mechanisms for the association between FAPDs and asthma using gastric motility and lung function tests.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional comparative study that consisted of four study groups. Twenty-four children (age 7-12 years) each were recruited for four study groups; asthma only, FAPDs only, both asthma and FAPDs, and healthy controls. Asthma was diagnosed using the history and bronchodilator reversibility test. The diagnosis of FAPDs was made using Rome IV criteria. All subjects underwent ultrasound assessment of gastric motility and pulmonary function assessment by spirometry, using validated techniques.
RESULTS: All gastric motility parameters, gastric emptying rate, amplitude of antral contraction, and antral motility index, were significantly impaired in children with FAPDs only, children with asthma only, and children with both asthma & FAPDs, compared to controls (p<0.05). Pulmonary function parameters indicating airway obstruction (FEV1/FVC ratio, peak expiratory flow rate, FEF25-75%) were not impaired in children with FAPDs only compared to controls (p>0.05), but significantly impaired in children with asthma and children with both disorders. Antral motility index correlated with the FEV1/FVC ratio (r = 0.60, p = 0.002) and FEF25%-75% (r = 0.49, p = 0.01) in children with both asthma and FAPDs.
CONCLUSIONS: Gastric motor functions were significantly impaired in children with asthma, children with FAPDs, and children with both disorders. Motility index, measuring overall gastric motor activity, showed a significant positive correlation with lung function parameters that measure airflow limitation. Therefore, these diseases might arise as a result of primary disturbance of smooth muscle activity in the airways and gastrointestinal wall, which could be a possible pathophysiological mechanism for this association between asthma and FAPDs.

Introduction

Functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs) are highly prevalent in children across the world, with an estimated prevalence of 13.5% [1]. High prevalence, healthcare expenditure, and negative impact on quality of life make FAPDs a major global health problem in children [2, 3]. The Rome IV classification identifies four types of FAPDs in children; functional dyspepsia (FD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional abdominal pain-not otherwise specified (FAP-NOS), and abdominal migraine (AM) [4].

Asthma is a disorder of the small airways characterized by obstruction, hyper-responsiveness, and chronic inflammation. Like FAPDs, with high prevalence ranging from 0.8–32.6% worldwide and poor quality of life, asthma is also considered a significant health problem in children across the world [5, 6].

White et al. demonstrated an increased bronchial hyper-responsiveness to inhaled methacholine in patients with IBS speculating the potential association between asthma and FAPDs [7]. Several studies have demonstrated the association between IBS and asthma in children and adults [8, 9]. However, the exact pathophysiological mechanisms that could explain this association have not been elucidated [10]. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to find a possible pathophysiological mechanism to explain this association between asthma and FAPDs.

The pathophysiology of asthma is complex and involves airway hyper-responsiveness, mucosal inflammation, airflow limitation, immunological reactions, smooth muscle dysfunction, and psychological factors [11]. Similarly, visceral hypersensitivity, inflammation of gut mucosa, impaired gastrointestinal motility, and complex interactions between the bidirectional brain-gut axis among the main pathophysiological mechanisms in FAPDs [12, 13].

Both the lung and the upper gut have the same embryological origin from the foregut, and the airways and gastrointestinal tract contain smooth muscle cells [14]. Therefore, in this study, we hypothesized that smooth muscle dysfunction is a shared pathophysiological mechanism for the observed association between FAPDs and asthma. To test our hypothesis, we assessed gastrointestinal smooth muscle function and bronchial smooth muscle function indirectly using standard tests.

Materials and methods

Study design and study setting

This was a cross-sectional comparative study. We conducted this study in the Lung Function Laboratory and Gastroenterology Research Laboratory of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. The study consisted of four groups; children with only asthma, children with only FAPDs, children with both diseases (asthma & FAPDs), and healthy children free from gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms.

Selection of study participant

Children with asthma and FAPDs were recruited from pediatric outpatient clinics of North Colombo Teaching Hospital, Ragama, Sri Lanka. Healthy children were recruited as controls. Their age ranges from 7–12 years. When recruiting healthy controls, children with a history of chronic medical or surgical disorders other than asthma and FAPDs and those on long-term medication were excluded from the study. Possible organic disorders were ruled out by history, physical examination, and investigations performed in all patients. All recruited patients underwent investigations including complete blood count, urine microscopy, urine culture, and acute-phase proteins. Some children underwent specific investigations depending on the clinical judgment of the consultant pediatrician, included renal function test (n = 9), serum amylase (n = 2), liver profile (n = 12), abdominal ultrasound (n = 28), X-ray urinary tract (n = 1), and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (n = 2). None of the patients showed clinical or laboratory evidence of organic diseases other than asthma and FAPDs.

Diagnosis of asthma

Children with a diagnosis of asthma were recruited, and their diagnosis was confirmed by history and the bronchodilator reversibility test following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline [15]. Both short and long-acting bronchodilators were stopped 6 hours and 12 hours before the reversibility test, respectively. Most of the children with asthma are on inhaled steroids; however, none were on oral steroids.

Diagnosis of FAPDs

We used Rome IV criteria to diagnose FAPDs in children [4].

Assessment of gastric motility

Real-time ultrasonography was a previously validated method of assessing gastric emptying and antral motility [16]. A high-resolution real-time scanner (Siemens ACUSON X300 ™) with 1.8MHz to 6.4 MHz curved linear transducer and facilities to record and playback was used to measure gastric motility parameters. Ultrasonographic assessment of gastric emptying is a well-established method of assessing gastric motility, and it shows a clear correlation with the gold standard scintigraphic method [17].

Gastric emptying rate

After overnight fasting, all subjects were asked to drink a standard liquid meal (200mL of chicken broth, heated to approximately 40°C, drunk within 2 min). The ultrasound probe was placed over the abdomen vertically to visualize the pyloric antrum, superior mesenteric artery, and abdominal aorta simultaneously. The measurement of the cross-sectional area of the antrum was obtained at fasting state, and 1min and 15min after drinking the liquid meal by tracing the mucosal side of the wall using the built-in caliper. The gastric emptying rate was computed using the following formula [16].

Gastric emptying rate (%) = ([Antral area at 1min–Antral area at 15min]/Antral area at 1min) X100

Calculation of antral motility

Antral motility parameters were obtained within the first 5 minutes after drinking the liquid meal. The cross-sectional area of the antrum was recorded during contractions and relaxations three times to calculate the amplitude of antral contractions. The antral motility index is a measure of the overall contractile activity of the gastric antrum.

Antral motility parameters were calculated as follows:

Frequency of antral contractions = Number of contractions per 3 min

Amplitude (%) = ([Antral area at relaxation–Antral area at contraction]/Antral area at relaxation) X 100

Antral motility index = Amplitude of antral contractions X Frequency of contractions

Assessment of lung function

Spirometry was performed using a Vitalograph Alpha Touch spirometer (Vitalograph Ltd. UK) on all subjects, according to National Institute for Healthcare Excellence guideline [15]. The maneuver was first demonstrated to children. The subjects were requested to stand during the procedure. A nose clip was applied to prevent breathing through the nose. They were instructed to expire forcefully and maximally until they feel that no breath is left and then inspire rapidly to maximum capacity. Each maneuver was monitored by flow-volume loops and manual observation to ensure that the effort was maximal, smooth, and artifact-free. The blow with the highest recording was used for the analysis. The above procedure was repeated 15 minutes after inhaling 200 mcg of salbutamol from a metered-dose inhaler via a spacer to assess the bronchodilator reversibility. Main lung function parameters recorded were forced vital capacity (FVC), Forced Expired Volume in the first second (FEV1), Forced Expiratory Flow between 25–75% (FEF25%-75%), Forced Expiratory Flow at 50% (FEF50%), and Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PEFR).

Ethical approval

The protocol of this study conforms to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki (originated in 1964 as revised in 2000) as reflected in a prior approval by the institution’s human research committee. Ethical Review Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, approved this study protocol (ERC reference number P/204/10/2015 Date of approval 09/12/2014). We obtained written, fully informed consent from parents of all children before the commencement of the study.

Statistical analysis

Sample size calculation

The sample size was calculated using the statistical software (Winpepi version—11.65).

To compare gastric motility between groups

Since previous studies assessing liquid gastric motility are not available for children with bronchial asthma, the sample size was calculated using data obtained for gastric emptying in children with FAPDs and healthy controls [18]. According to the available data at a significant level of 0.05 and power of 80%, to show 1 SD difference, the minimal sample size required is 17 in each group.

To compare the lung functions between groups

The sample size was estimated using previous research data (SD value) obtained for lung functions (FEV1, FEF25-75%) in patients with FGIDs and healthy controls [19]. According to the available data at a significant level of 0.05 and power of 80%, to show 1 SD difference, the minimal sample size required is 15 in each group. To increase the validity of our results, we recruited 24 subjects for each group.

Data analysis

Gastric motility and lung function parameters between four groups were compared using One-Way ANOVA with Post Hoc Test (Tukey HSD). Lung function parameters and gastric motility parameters were correlated using Spearman Rank Correlation. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. PSPP statistical software version 1.0.1 was used in all calculations.

Results

Sample characteristics

Table 1 displays the sample characteristics in four study groups: FAPDs only, asthma only, both asthma and FAPDs, and healthy controls.

Table 1

Sample characteristics.

	FAPDs only	Asthma only	Both asthma and FAPDs	Healthy control
Age in years	9.4 (1.6)	9.6 (1.3)	9.3 (1.3)	10 (1.3)
Mean (SD)
Gender
Male n (%)	11 (44%)	14 (58.3%)	12 (50%)	14 (56%)
Female n (%)	14 (56%)	10 (41.7%)	12 (50%)	11(44%)
FAPDs subtypes
IBS n (%)	2 (8%)	-	9 (37.5%)	-
FD n (%)	10 (40%)	-	4 (17%)	-
FAP n (%)	8 (32%)	-	9 (37.5%)	-
AM n (%)	5 (20%)	-	2 (8%)	-

FAPDs, functional abdominal pain disorders; AM, Abdominal migraine; FAP, Functional abdominal pain disorders; FD, Functional dyspepsia; IBS, Irritable bowel syndrome.

Comparison of gastric motility parameters between patients and healthy children

displays gastric motility parameters between study groups. Gastric emptying rate, the amplitude of antral contractions, frequency of antral contractions, and antral motility index were significantly lower in patients with only asthma, patients with only FAPDs, and patients with both diseases compared to healthy children. After adjusting for the usage of inhaler drugs, antral motility parameters were still significantly impaired in children with asthma compared to healthy children (odds ratio [OR] 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–0.84, p<0.05). The gastric motility parameters were not significantly different between children with only asthma and only FAPDs.

Comparison of lung function parameters between patients and controls

depicts lung function parameters between study groups. Lung function parameters indicating airway obstruction (FEV1/FVC ratio, FEF25-75%) were significantly lower among children with only asthma and children with both diseases than healthy children. Lung function parameters were not reduced in children with only FAPDs compared to healthy children. There is no statistically significant difference in spirometric values between children with only asthma and children having both diseases.

Correlation between lung function parameters and gastric motility parameters

In children with both diseases, the motility index had significant positive correlations with FEV1/FVC ratio () and FEF25-75% (). No such correlation was observed with other lung function parameters and in children with only asthma and only FAPDs.

Correlation between motility index and FEV1/FVC ratio in children with both asthma and functional abdominal pain disorders.

FVC, Forced Vital Capacity; FEV1, Forced expired volume in the first second.

Correlation between motility index and FEF25-75% in children with both asthma and functional abdominal pain disorders.

FEF25-75%, Forced Expiratory Flow between 25–75%.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first pediatric study to assess gastric motility and lung function in children with FAPDs and asthma. We found that children with asthma had a significant impairment of gastric motility compared to healthy children. Furthermore, we have demonstrated a correlation between the antral motility index and lung function parameters, which indicate airway obstruction (FEV1/FVC ratio and FEF25-75%) in children with both disorders. However, there was no significant difference in lung function parameters in children with only FAPDs compared to healthy children.

Several published studies have shown an association between asthma and IBS, mainly in adults [7, 9, 11]. An epidemiological survey, recently reported an association between asthma and different types of FAPDs, namely FAP, FD, and AM, in teenagers aged 13–15 years [8]. However, most studies assessing this association are limited to epidemiological studies, and there is a lack of laboratory-based studies investigating this association in-depth to explain the possible underlying shared pathophysiological mechanisms.

In agreement with our hypothesis, we were able to show gastric dysmotility in children with asthma and FAPDs. This finding indicates that the gastrointestinal dysmotility is common for both diseases and a possible shared pathophysiological mechanism in children with both disorders. Our finding was supported by several previous studies showing a significant impairment of gastric emptying and antral motility in children with FAPDs [18, 20–24]. However, the gastric motor function has never been assessed in children with asthma previously. In accordance with our findings, another study conducted among adults has reported a delayed gastric emptying and lower antral motility index among sufferers of asthma [25].

One possible way of explaining the association between asthma and abnormal gastric function is the presence of gastro-esophageal reflux. Previous studies conducted in both children and adults have shown an association between gastro-esophageal reflux (GER) and asthma. The prevalence of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) widely varies in patients with asthma. A systematic review, including 19 pediatric studies, reported a prevalence varying from 19.3% to 80.0%. The average prevalence of GER was 22.0% in children with asthma and 4.8% in controls (pooled odds ratio: 5.6 [95% confidence interval: 4.3–6.9]) [26]. This systematic review reported a possible association between GERD and asthma in children but failed to find adequate evidence to support causality. Another study assessing asthma in patients with GERD reported a prevalence of 13.2% (compared to 6.8% in controls) [27]. It is possible that in our cohort of children with FAPDs, increased intragastric pressure due to delayed gastric emptying and impairment of antral motility may predispose them to develop GER precipitating asthma [28]. However, the GER was most likely to be subclinical as none of the patients recruited in the study had clinically overt symptoms of this disease.

In this study, for the first time, we assessed lung functions in children with FAPDs. We could not demonstrate an airflow limitation, indicating airway smooth muscle dysfunction in children with only FAPDs using conventional spirometry. Similarly, two studies conducted among adults failed to detect a significant difference in the spirometry values (FEV1, FEV1/FVC, FEF25-75%) between adult asthmatics with IBS and those without IBS [9, 29]. However, a study in patients with IBS with no respiratory symptoms has demonstrated an increased airway resistance using impulse oscillometry, a more sensitive method than spirometry, indicating the possibility of a subclinical increase in airway resistance and airway smooth muscle dysfunction in patients with IBS [19]. It may be that the abnormal airway resistance in patients with FAPDs is not substantial enough to be detected by direct spirometry, and more sensitive tests, such as body plethysmography and impulse oscillometry, may be needed to detect these changes [30, 31]. Therefore, airway smooth muscle dysfunction could not be completely ruled out as a possible shared pathophysiological mechanism for the association between these two disorders. This possibility is further strengthened by the correlation observed between gastric motility and lung function parameters.

In children suffering from both diseases (asthma and FAPDs), the antral motility index, a measure of the overall contractile activity of gastric antrum, showed significant positive correlations with lung function parameters like FEV1/FVC ratio and FEF25-75%, which are measures of airflow limitation. No such correlation was observed with FVC, which mainly depends on skeletal muscle function. While gastric antral motility is an indirect measurement of the smooth muscle function in the gut, lung function parameters such as FEV1/FVC ratio and FEF25-75% indirectly measure the activity of airway smooth muscles. Therefore, this positive correlation indicates the alteration of smooth muscle activity in the lung and gut among patients suffering from both diseases. On the other hand, it is also possible that delayed gastric emptying and altered antral motility induce subclinical GER, which leads to spasms and dysfunction of the smooth muscles of the respiratory tract, also contributing to the association between FAPDs and asthma as described above. However, we could not detect such a correlation between gastric motility and lung function parameters in children with only asthma and children with only FAPDs. In these two groups, the degree of impairment may not be strong enough to show a definite correlation.

The other possible shared pathophysiological mechanism is immunological dysfunction, common to both disease entities. Increased accumulation of immune-mediated cells, mast cells, eosinophils, and T lymphocytes in the airway mucosa, leads to airway inflammation and airway hyper-responsiveness in children with asthma [32]. Similarly, an accumulation of immune-mediated cells and disordered immune responses were observed in the intestinal mucosa of patients with FAPDs [33, 34]. Mast cells (MCs) are found in intestinal epithelium release a variety of chemicals including serotonin which alters epithelial secretion, intestinal permeability, neuroimmune interactions, visceral sensation, and gastrointestinal movements [35]. MCs found in airway smooth muscle in patients with asthma release immunogenic chemicals, mainly histamine, which shows the dominant effect on contraction of airway smooth muscle cells leading to bronchial hyper-responsiveness and dysmotility in the intestine [36, 37]. Similar to patients with asthma, increased eosinophil count is detected in gastric mucosa in patients with FAPDs and is believed to be responsible for inducing characteristic gastrointestinal symptoms such as pain [38]. Therefore, these findings suggest that the same immunological dysfunctions shared by FAPDs and asthma could be the underlying pathophysiology of this association.

There are several strengths to our study. We have collected data from a sample, which is more than the minimum required sample size, to increase the validity of the results. Furthermore, we have incorporated standard Rome IV criteria in this study to diagnose patients with FAPDs and pulmonary function tests combined with bronchodilator reversibility to diagnose patients with asthma. We have used standard physiological tests to assess pulmonary functions and gastric motility, which has a good correlation with radio nuclear scintigraphy and excellent reliability and inter-observer variability [17, 39]. One of the limitations of our study was that we recruited patients regardless of their current asthma medication, mainly inhaled corticosteroids. However, the drugs were stopped for an adequate time before laboratory investigations, to minimize their effects on lung function and gastric motility assessments. Furthermore, our findings show that even after adjusting for the usage of inhaled drugs, antral motility parameters were significantly impaired in our asthmatic children compared to healthy children. Another limitation was that we measured smooth muscle dysfunction in the lung and gut indirectly using spirometry and gastric motility ultrasound techniques. We could not use more sensitive measures of airway function such as impulse oscillometry and measures of gastric motility such as scintigraphy due to a lack of resources.

Conclusion

We report that gastric motor functions are significantly impaired in children with asthma, children with FAPDs, and children with both disorders. Lung function parameters were impaired in children with asthma and children with both diseases but not impaired children with FAPDs. However, the motility index, which measures overall gastric motor activity, showed a significant positive correlation with lung function parameters which measure airflow limitation in children with both diseases. Therefore, it raises the possibility that primary disturbance of smooth muscle activity in the airways and gastrointestinal wall could be a possible shared pathophysiological mechanism for the association between asthma and FAPDs.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

20 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-08562

Gastric motility and pulmonary function in children with functional abdominal pain disorders and asthma: a pathophysiological study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Devanarayana,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

please correct or write a detailed rebuttal regarding the corrections suggested by reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Davor Plavec, MD, MSc, PhD, Prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

NO - The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

At this time, please address the following queries:

2a)         Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

2b)         State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

2c)          If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

2d)         If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

3a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

3b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

please correct or write a detailed rebuttal regarding the corrections suggested by reviewers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a good written paper in which Kumari at al. offer a possible explanation for the previously observed association between functional abdominal pain disorders (FAPDs) and asthma. The authors designed a cross-sectional comparative study to test their hypothesis that smooth muscle dysfunction is one of the possible shared pathophysiological mechanisms in both disorders.

They assessed gastrointestinal and bronchial smooth muscle function in four groups of children: FAPDs only, asthma only, both asthma and FAPDs and healthy controls. The authors performed indirect standard tests: real-time ultrasonography, a previously validated method of investigating gastric emptying and antral motility; and spirometry for assessment of lung function parameters and bronchodilator reversibility. The methods and study design are clearly explained and the study is reproducible. The results were obtained using adequate statistical approach and are presented clearly in the text, tables and figures.

This is the first study investigating gastric motor function in children with asthma and the authors showed that gastric motor functions are significantly impaired in children with asthma, similar to children with FAPDs. This suggests gastrointestinal dysmotility could be a possible shared pathophysiological mechanism between these two disorders.

Several studies investigated spirometry findings in adults with FAPDs, but this is the first paper reporting on lung functions in children with FAPDs. The results show normal lung function test in these children. However, in one subgroup of subjects – children with both asthma and FAPDs, the authors were able to demonstrate a significant correlation between parameters that measure airflow limitation (FEV1/FVC ratio, FEF 25-75%) and the motility index, which measures overall gastric motor activity. These correlations suggest simultaneous alteration of airway and digestive tract smooth muscle activity in patients suffering from both diseases and support the hypothesis of shared pathophysiological mechanisms. However, it is worth mentioning that no such correlation was observed in children with only asthma and only FAPDs.

In the discussion section, the authors address how their findings relate to previous research in this area and offer possible explanations of their results. This section needs revision to improve the understanding and better justify the conclusions, as stated below. The authors correctly identify strengths and limitations of their study. Finally, they conclude by suggesting that both asthma and FAPDs might arise because of primary disturbance of smooth muscle activity in the airways and gastrointestinal wall, which could be a possible pathophysiological mechanism for the association between these disorders.

This study could be a foundation for future research to prove the proposed pathophysiological mechanism with more sensitive measures of airway and gut smooth muscle functions and perhaps lead to development of new effective treatment modalities to manage these children more effectively.

Before approving this paper for publication, I suggest that the authors modify the discussion and clarify the following sections to avoid confusion:

1) Why does more severe impairment of gastric motility in children suffering from both asthma and FAPDs, compared to either disease alone further strengthen the association of gut dysmotility and asthma? (page 18, lines 289-291, and repeated in Conclusion, page 21)

2) How do the authors explain the fact that no correlation was documented between motility index and FEV1/FVC ratio or FEF 25-75% in asthmatic children (Results, page 16, paragraph 1), although the subjects did have impaired gastric motility (especially in the context of a positive correlation found among children with both FAPDs and asthma)? Please add comment to the Discussion section.

3) Is the suggested shared pathophysiological mechanism regarding smooth muscle impairment restricted to children with both diseases, or does subclinical pathology (either respiratory or gastrointestinal) exist in all cases? If yes, what would be the reason for inconsistent correlation results among different study groups?

4) The assertion of the conclusion needs toning down/adjustment accordingly to these revisions. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their composition of the conclusion.

Reviewer #2: Dear author, your research and idea of research are really interesting. Unfortunately, this paper is written in bad English and needs proofreading. Also, I partially disagree with the statement in the conclusion - gastrointestinal dysmotility is a possible common pathophysiological mechanism between these two diseases - as gastrointestinal dysmotility cannot really be a part of asthma pathomechanism... Later, it is well said: therefore, these diseases could arise as a result of a primary disruption of smooth muscle activity in the airways and gastrointestinal wall, which could be a possible pathophysiological mechanism for this association between asthma and FAPDs. I suggest you remove or rephrase the first part.

Also, I noticed that you use the same abbreviation for gastric emptying rate and gastroesophageal reflux, which can be confusing.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Duska Tjesic-Drinkovic

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

21 Jul 2021

Answers to comments of reviewers

Reviewer - 1

Before approving this paper for publication, I suggest that the authors modify the discussion and clarify the following sections to avoid confusion.

Comment:

1) Why does more severe impairment of gastric motility in children suffering from both asthma and FAPDs, compared to either disease alone further strengthen the association of gut dysmotility and asthma? (page 18, lines 289-291, and repeated in Conclusion, page 21)

Answer:

Although this statement says there is impairment of gastric motility in children suffering from both asthma and FAPDs compared to either disease alone, it is not actually statistically significant. According to statistical analysis and results (Table 2), gastric motility is impaired significantly in children suffering from both diseases compared to control group (p<0.0001) and compared to children with asthma alone group (p<0.05) but not compared to children with FAPDs alone group (p>0.05). Therefore the above statement was removed from results section, discussion and conclusion of manuscript.

Comment:

2) How do the authors explain the fact that no correlation was documented between motility index and FEV1/FVC ratio or FEF 25-75% in asthmatic children (Results, page 16, paragraph 1), although the subjects did have impaired gastric motility (especially in the context of a positive correlation found among children with both FAPDs and asthma)? Please add comment to the Discussion section.

Answer:

Though it is observed a positive correlation between gastric motility parameters and lung function parameters (FEV1/FVC ratio or FEF 25-75%) in children having both diseases, we could not detect such correlation in children with only asthma and children with only FAPDs. This is because there could be either impairment of airway smooth muscle function at subclinical state in children in children with only FAPDS or or impairment in gastric motility is not severe enough in children with only asthma. Ttherefore, the degree of impairment is not strong enough to give such correlation for them to be associated each other. However, with the diseases progression, at one point, once the smooth muscle dysfunction in lung and gut become severe enough to have a strong correlation, then there is a possibility for these two disorders to get associated with each other sharing the same pathophysiological mechanism.

Comment: :

3) Is the suggested shared pathophysiological mechanism regarding smooth muscle impairment restricted to children with both diseases, or does subclinical pathology (either respiratory or gastrointestinal) exist in all cases? If yes, what would be the reason for inconsistent correlation results among different study groups?

Answer:

Though a positive correlation is observed between gastric motility and lung function parameters (FEV1/FVC ratio or FEF 25-75%) in children having both diseases, we could not detect such correlation in children with only asthma and children with only FAPDs. This may be because there could be either impairment of airway smooth muscle function or gastric motility function at subclinical state in children with only asthma or in children with only FAPDs, therefore, the degree of impairment is not strong enough to give such correlation for them to be associated each other. However, with the diseases progression, at one point, once the smooth muscle dysfunction in lung and gut become severe enough to have a strong correlation, then there is a possibility for these two disorders to get associated with each other sharing the same pathophysiological mechanism. Therefore, we suggest the possibility that smooth muscle impairment may exist at subclinical state either lung or gut in children with asthma or FAPDs

Comment:

4) The assertion of the conclusion needs toning down/adjustment accordingly to these revisions. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their composition of the conclusion.

Answer

Revision was made accordingly in the conclusion according to the reviewer comment.

Reviewer – 2

Comment 1

Dear author, your research and idea of research are really interesting. Unfortunately, this paper is written in bad English and needs proofreading.

Answer

English was edited and proofreading was done again

Comment 2

Also, I partially disagree with the statement in the conclusion - gastrointestinal dysmotility is a possible common pathophysiological mechanism between these two diseases - as gastrointestinal dysmotility cannot really be a part of asthma pathomechanism... Later, it is well said: therefore, these diseases could arise as a result of a primary disruption of smooth muscle activity in the airways and gastrointestinal wall, which could be a possible pathophysiological mechanism for this association between asthma and FAPDs. I suggest you remove or rephrase the first part.

Also, I noticed that you use the same abbreviation for gastric emptying rate and gastroesophageal reflux, which can be confusing.

Answer

According to the reviewer, this statement (gastrointestinal dysmotility is a possible common pathophysiological mechanism between these two diseases) was removed from discussion and conclusion. The abbreviation is also changed.

Editorial Comment

Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

Answer

The methods section of the study has been revised according to the comment.

Submitted filename: Answers to comments of reviewers R1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-08562R1

Gastric motility and pulmonary function in children with functional abdominal pain disorders and asthma: a pathophysiological study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Devanarayana,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Davor Plavec, MD, MSc, PhD, Prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please revise the manuscript as suggested by reviewer #1.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the revised manuscript, the authors repeat the statement: “gastric dysmotility is more severe in children having asthma+FAPDs than in having one of those diseases” (Discussion section - line 285), although they acknowledged this is not true (authors’ answer to my Comment 1)

Unfortunately, the authors failed to offer a plausible explanation/answer to my comments 2 and 3. Their conclusions, incorporated in the Discussion section, do not appear sound for several reasons. Specifically, they assume that muscle dysfunction is milder in asthma alone and FAPDs alone than in asthma+FAPDs, but the presented data (Table 2) does not support this assumption. They also suggest that disease progression and the degree of muscle impairment are important for a correlation to exist. They failed to relate to any reference that would back up their point of view. Not being able to find a plausible explanation for a study result is better than offering unsupported or confusing opinions.

Concerning the Reviewer 2 comment – the authors again use the same abbreviation GER for two conditions, what is disappointing. (for example, see lines 290-295).

Therefore, I do not support publishing the work in this form. I encourage the authors to revise the Manuscript once again, mainly the Discussion, following this comment and the previous review comments.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Duska Tjesic-Drinkovic

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

21 Sep 2021

Reviewer #1:

Comment:

In the revised manuscript, the authors repeat the statement: “gastric dysmotility is more severe in children having asthma+FAPDs than in having one of those diseases” (Discussion section - line 285), although they acknowledged this is not true (authors’ answer to my Comment 1)

Answer:

This is revised according to the reviewer comment

Comment:

Unfortunately, the authors failed to offer a plausible explanation/answer to my comments 2 and 3. Their conclusions, incorporated in the Discussion section, do not appear sound for several reasons. Specifically, they assume that muscle dysfunction is milder in asthma alone and FAPDs alone than in asthma+FAPDs, but the presented data (Table 2) does not support this assumption. They also suggest that disease progression and the degree of muscle impairment are important for a correlation to exist. They failed to relate to any reference that would back up their point of view. Not being able to find a plausible explanation for a study result is better than offering unsupported or confusing opinions.

Answer:

This is revised according to the reviewer comment

Concerning the Reviewer 2 comment – the authors again use the same abbreviation GER for two conditions, what is disappointing. (for example, see lines 290-295).

Therefore, I do not support publishing the work in this form. I encourage the authors to revise the Manuscript once again, mainly the Discussion, following this comment and the previous review comments.

Answer:

This is revised according to the reviewer comment

Editorial comments

Comment

We need additional clarification to proceed, please address the following:

1. Please confirm that the minimal data set is shared within your Supporting Information file.

Answer

We confirm that the following are provided in the attached data file.

The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

The values used to build graphs;

The points extracted from images for analysis

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments and asnwers R2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

17 Dec 2021

Gastric motility and pulmonary function in children with functional abdominal pain disorders and asthma: a pathophysiological study

PONE-D-21-08562R2

Dear Dr. Devanarayana,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Davor Plavec, MD, MSc, PhD, Prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Ass all the reviewers suggestions have been accepted the manuscript is acceptable for publication in its current form.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Duska Tjesic-Drinkovic

Reviewer #2: No

24 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-08562R2

Gastric motility and pulmonary function in children with functional abdominal pain disorders and asthma: a pathophysiological study

Dear Dr. Devanarayana:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Davor Plavec

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 2

Comparison of gastric motility parameters between study groups.

Gastric motility parameters	Asthma only	FAPDs only	Both Asthma and FAPDs	Healthy children
	n = 25	n = 25	n = 25	n = 25
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Fasting antral area (cm2)	2.9 (1.2) *	3.5 (1.5) **	2.9 (1.3) *	2.1 (1.0)
Gastric emptying rate (%)	39.7 (13.2) ***	33.9 (13.3) ***	32.2 (10.0) ***†	57.5 (14.5)
Amplitude of antral contraction (%)	42.8 (10.0) ***	41.0 (8.2) ***	42.6 (14.3) ***	63.6 (16.9)
Frequency of antral contraction (per 3 min)	8.9 (1.1)	8.6 (1.0) **	8.6 (0.9) **	9.4 (0.9)
Antral motility index	3.9 (1.3) ***	3.5 (0.8) ***	3.6 (1.3) ***	6.0 (1.8)

***p<0.0001

**p<0.01

*p<0.05 compared to healthy children

†p<0.05 compared to children with asthma only.

FAPDs, Functional abdominal pain disorders.

Table 3

Comparison of lung function parameters between study groups.

Lung function parameters	Asthma only	FAPDs only	Both FAPDs & asthma	Health children
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
FVC	1.5 (0.3)	1.7 (0.4)	1.5 (0.2)	1.7 (0.3)
FEV1	1.3 (0.3) *†	1.6 (0.4)	1.3 (0.2) †	1.5 (0.3)
FEV1/FVC ratio	82.6 (13.6) *	87.3 (6.8)	82.7 (7.0) *	90.4 (5.1)
PEFR	175.8 (60.8) *†	218.8 (46.4)	178.4 (49.8) *†	223.9 (48.9)
FEF25-75%	1.4 (0.5) **††	2.1 (0.6)	1.4 (0.5) **††	2.1 (0.6)
FEF50%	1.7 (0.6) **††	2.4 (0.7)	1.7 (0.6) **††	2.5 (0.7)

*p<0.05 and

**p< 0.0001 compared to controls.

†P<0.05 and

††P<0.01, compared to FAPDs only.

FAPDs, functional abdominal pain disorders; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in one second; PEFR, peak expiratory flow rate; FEF25%-75%, forced expiratory flow between 25–75% and FEF50%, forced expiratory flow at 50%.