GSRS—A clinical rating scale for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome and peptic ulcer disease
- 2.6k Downloads
An interview-based rating scale consisting of 15 items for assessment of gastrointestinal symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome and peptic ulcer disease has been developed. The interrater reliability was estimated by means of independent and simultaneous duplicate ratings by two raters in 20 cases and ranged from 0.86 to 1.00. The scale was easy to apply and proved to be useful in comparing the effectiveness of different modes of treatment in two clinical trials.
Key wordssymptom rating clinical assessment treatment evaluation irritable bowel syndrome peptic ulcer disease
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 8.Latimer PR: Behavioral assessment.In Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders. A Behavioral Medicine Approach. New York, Springer, 1983, pp. 83–106Google Scholar
- 9.Bates S, Sjödén P-O: Registration of pain in a psychological perspective. Scand J Gastroenterol 20(suppl 109):15–18, 1985Google Scholar
- 11.Montgomery SA, Taylor P, Montgomery D: Development of a schizophrenia scale sensitive to change. Neuropsychopharmacology 17:1061–1063, 1978Google Scholar
- 25.Sjödén P-O, Bates S, Nyrén O: Continuous self-recording of epigastric pain with two rating scales: Compliance, authenticity, reliability, and sensitivity. J Behav Assess 5:327–344, 1983Google Scholar
- 27.Saunders JHB, Oliver RJ, Higson DL: Dyspepsia: Incidence of nonulcer disease in a controlled trial of ranitidine in general practice. Br Med J 292:665–668, 1986Google Scholar
- 28.Sacket DL: On some prerequisites for a successful clinical trial.In Clinical Trials. Issues and Approaches. SH Shapiro, TA Louis (eds). New York, Marcel Dekker, 1983, pp 65–79Google Scholar
- 29.Adami HO: The role and conduct of clinical trials in the treatment of peptic ulcer disease.In Pharmacological Treatment of Ulcer and Nonulcer Dyspepsia. National Board of Health and Welfare Drug Information Committee, Sweden, 1985, No. 3, pp 35–47Google Scholar