Evidence Hub

Prevalence of Functional GI Diseases and Pelvic floor Symptoms in Marfan Syndrome and Ehlers Danlos Syndrome: A National Cohort Study

Judy W. Nee, Saikiran M. Kilaru, J. Kelley, S. S. Oza, William Hirsch, S. Ballou, A. Lembo, J. Wolf

Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 2019

3,934 participants · 20 citations

Abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background and Aims: Prior studies have shown a high prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, diagnoses of functional GI diseases (FGIDs), and pelvic floor symptoms associated with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS). It is unclear if Marfan syndrome (MFS), another common hereditary noninflammatory connective tissue disorder, is also associated these symptoms. This study evaluates the prevalence of and compares FGIDs and pelvic floor symptoms in a national cohort of EDS and MFS patients. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to members of local and national MFS and EDS societies. The questionnaire evaluated the presence of GI and pelvic floor symptoms and diagnoses. The presence of FGIDs was confirmed using Rome III criteria. Quality of life was evaluated and scored with the CDC quality of life. Key Results: Overall, 3934 patients completed the questionnaire, from which 1804 reported that they had some form of EDS and 600 had MFS. In total, 93% of patients with EDS complained of GI symptoms and qualified for at least one FGID compared with 69.8% of patients with MFS. When comparing EDS prevalence of upper and lower GI symptoms as well as FGIDs, subjects with EDS reported significantly higher prevalence of Rome III FGIDs as compared with those with MFS. Irritable bowel syndrome (57.8% vs. 27.0%, P<0.001), functional dyspepsia (FD) (55.4% vs. 25.0%, P<0.001), postprandial distress (49.6% vs. 21.7%, P<0.001), heartburn (33.1% vs.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 3,934 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free