4.6 Article

Irritable bowel syndrome in children: Pathogenesis, diagnosis and evidence-based treatment

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 20, 期 20, 页码 6013-6023

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i20.6013

关键词

Recurrent abdominal pain; Irritable bowel syndrome; Brain-gut disorder; Lifestyle modifications; Biopsychosocial therapies; Children; Rome III criteria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the commonest cause of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) in children in both more developed and developing parts of the world. It is defined by the Rome. criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders. It is characterized by abdominal pain that is improved by defecation and whose onset is associated with a change in stool form and or frequency and is not explained by structural or biochemical abnormalities. It is estimated that 10%-15% of older children and adolescents suffer from IBS. IBS can be considered to be a brain-gut disorder possibly due to complex interaction between environmental and hereditary factors. The diagnosis of IBS is made based on the Rome. criteria together with ruling out organic causes of RAP in children such as inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease. Once the diagnosis of IBS is made, it is important to explain to the parents (and children) that there is no serious underlying disease. This reassurance may be effective treatment in a large number of cases. Lifestyle modifications, stress management, dietary interventions and probiotics may be beneficial in some cases. Although there is limited evidence for efficacy of pharmacological therapies such as antispasmodics and antidiarrheals; these have a role in severe cases. Biopsychosocial therapies have shown encouraging results in initial trials but are beset by limited availability. Further research is necessary to understand the pathophysiology and provide specific focused therapies. (C) 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据