4.6 Article

Prevalence of Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders in Children and Adolescents: Comparison Between Rome III and Rome IV Criteria

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 199, Issue -, Pages 212-216

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.03.037

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To assess the prevalence of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) in children using Rome IV criteria and to compare the prevalence of FGIDs using Rome IV with Rome III criteria. Study design This was a cross-sectional study using the same methods as our previous study on FGIDs in Colombia. The Questionnaire of Pediatric Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rome IV version was translated into Spanish, followed by reverse translation. Terms were adjusted to children's language by using focus groups of children. School children aged 8-18 years completed the Spanish version of the Questionnaire of Pediatric Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rome IV. Data were compared with Rome III data. Results In total. there were 3567 children (from 6 cities): 1071 preadolescents (8-12 years) and 2496 adolescents (13-18 years). Average age 13.7 +/- 2.4 years (56.5% girls). A total of 21.2% of children had at least 1 FGID. Prevalence was significantly lower than Rome III (P = .004). Similar to Rome III, disorders of defecation were the most common. followed by abdominal pain, and disorders of nausea and vomiting. Prevalence of abdominal migraine decreased (P = .000) and functional dyspepsia increased (P = .000). The new diagnoses functional vomiting and functional nausea were present in 0.7% of all children. Conclusions The application of the Rome IV criteria resulted in a significantly lower prevalence of FGIDs; however. the relative frequency of each subgroup of disorders did not change. New diagnoses of the Rome IV criteria were present in a small percentage of children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available