Project Note

Exploring the agreement between diagnostic criteria for IBS in primary care in Greece

Foteini Anastasiou¹ , Ioannis A Mouzas² , Joanna Moschandreas³ , Elias Kouroumalis² and Christos Lionis¹

¹Clinic of Social and Family Medicine, Department of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

²Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Heraklion, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

³Biostatistics Laboratory, Department of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

author email corresponding author email

BMC Research Notes 2008, 1:127doi:10.1186/1756-0500-1-127

Published:	3 December 2008

Abstract

Background

Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is frequently diagnosed in primary care. Its diagnosis is based on diagnostic criteria but their use is limited in primary care.

We aimed to assess the diagnostic agreement between the older (Manning's and Rome II) and the new (Rome III) criteria for the diagnosis of IBS in primary care in Greece.

Methods

Medical records of 5 Health Centers in rural Crete, Greece, were reviewed for a four-year period and patients with the diagnosis of IBS were invited to a structured interview. Kappa agreement of the Rome III criteria with the criteria of Manning and Rome II was estimated. One hundred and twenty three patients were eligible for interview and 67 (54.5%) participated. Forty-six (69%) fulfilled the Manning, 32(48%) the Rome II, and 16(24%) the Rome III criteria. Twenty-seven (40%) patients were identified as IBS according to the questionnaire for the identification of functional gastrointestinal diseases (FGIDs). The agreement of Rome III with Manning criteria was poor (kappa = 0.25). The agreement between the FGIDs questionnaire and the Manning, Rome II and Rome III criteria was: kappa = 0.30, 0.31 and 0.24 respectively. Moderate agreement was found between the Rome II and III criteria (kappa = 0.51).

Conclusion

Questionnaires and criteria deriving from expert's consensus meetings or tertiary hospitals are not easy to apply in rural primary care where symptoms are often underestimated by patients and complicated questions can be confusing.