4.3 Article

Diet in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: A cross-sectional study in the general population

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-12-61

关键词

Human; Adult; Irritable bowel syndrome; Cross-sectional studies; Diet; Gastrointestinal tract

资金

  1. Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation through the Norwegian Asthma and Allergy Association, Norway
  2. Innlandet Hospital Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) often relate symptoms to the intake of certain foods. This study assesses differences in diet in subjects with and without IBS. Methods: The cross-sectional, population-based study was conducted in Norway in 2001. Out of 11078 invited subjects, 4621 completed a survey about abdominal complaints and intake of common food items. IBS and IBS subgroups were classified according to Rome II criteria. Results: IBS was diagnosed in 388 subjects (8.4%) and, of these, 26.5% had constipation-predominant IBS (C-IBS), 44.8% alternating IBS (A-IBS), and 28.6% diarrhoea-predominant IBS (D-IBS). Low intake of dairy products (portions/day) (Odds Ratio 0.85 [CI 0.78 to 0.93], p = 0.001) and high intake of water (100 ml/day) (1.08 [1.02 to 1.15], p = 0.002), tea (1.05 [1.01 to 1.10], p = 0.019) and carbonated beverages (1.07 [1.01 to 1.14], p = 0.023) were associated with IBS. A lower intake of dairy products and a higher intake of alcohol and carbonated beverages were associated with D-IBS and a higher intake of water and tea was associated with A-IBS. In subjects with IBS the severity of symptoms was associated with a higher intake of vegetables and potatoes in subjects with C-IBS, with a higher intake of vegetables in subjects with A-IBS, and with a higher intake of fruits and berries, carbonated beverages and alcohol in subjects with D-IBS. Conclusions: In this study, the diet differed in subjects with and without IBS and between IBS subgroups and was associated with the severity of symptoms.

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

4.3
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