Defining constipation to estimate its prevalence in the community: results from a national survey

Abstract

Background Different definitions of constipation have been used to estimate its prevalence in the community but this creates difficulties when comparing results from various studies. This study explores the impact of different definitions on prevalence estimates in the same population and compares the performance of simple definitions with the Rome III criteria. Methods The prevalence of constipation in a large nationally representative sample of community-dwelling adults was estimated using five simple definitions of constipation and compared with definitions based on the Rome III criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, were calculated for each definition using the Rome III criteria as the gold standards for chronic and sub-chronic constipation. Results Prevalence estimates for the five simple definitions ranged from 9.4 to 58.9%, while the prevalence estimates using the Rome III criteria were 24.0% (95%CI: 22.1, 25.9) for chronic constipation and 39.6% (95%CI: 37.5, 41.7) for sub-chronic constipation. None of the simple definitions were adequate compared to the Rome III criteria. Self-reported constipation over the past 12 months had the highest sensitivity (91.1%, 95%CI: 88.8, 93.4) and negative predictive value (94.5%, 95%CI: 93.1, 96.1) compared to the Rome III criteria for chronic constipation but an unacceptably low specificity (51.3%, 95%CI: 48.8, 53.8) and positive predictive value (37.1%, 95%CI: 34.4, 39.9). Conclusions The definition used to identify constipation within a population has a considerable impact on the prevalence estimate obtained. Simple definitions, commonly used in research, performed poorly compared with the Rome III criteria. Studies estimating population prevalence of constipation should use definitions based on the Rome criteria where possible.

Constipation and the Quality of Life in Conservatively Treated Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: A Cross-sectional Study

“…Since constipation prevalence varies widely due to differences in the used constipation definition 2 , 28 - 30 , we used three ways to define constipation: the BSFS, Rome III criteria, and the decreased frequency of BM per week. In the general population of Europe, the mean value of the reported constipation rates is 17.1% 2 ; that is a lower value than the prevalence of FC and BSFS-based constipation in our study; that is 18.9% and 28.9%, respectively.…”

Exploring the Association of Autism Spectrum Disorders and Constipation through Analysis of the Gut Microbiome

“…Among those GI symptoms, constipation was observed to be the most common problem in ASD patients, with a prevalence of up to 50% or more [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. The prevalence estimates of constipation in the general population were 24% and 39.6% only for chronic constipation and sub-chronic constipation, respectively [ 9 ].…”

The Role of Lactulose in the Treatment of Hemorrhoids

“…Поэтому устранение запоров и размягчение стула -первостепенная задача при лечении геморроя. Три крупных систематических обзора, включающих 50 эпидемиологических исследований взрослого населения, показали, что распространенность запоров колеблется в широких пределах -от 9,4 до 58,9% [8]. Ряд пациентов годами наблюдаются у гастроэнтерологов по поводу запора, не подозревая о наличии у них геморроя.…”