, Volume 20, Issue 11, pp 749–758 | Cite as

Burden of Illness in Irritable Bowel Syndrome Comparing Rome I and Rome II Criteria

  • Xavier Badia
  • Fermin Mearin
  • Agustin Balboa
  • Eva Baró
  • Ellen Caldwell
  • Mercedes Cucala
  • Manuel Díaz-Rubio
  • Arturo Fueyo
  • Julio Ponce
  • Mentse Roset
  • Nicholas J. Talley
Original Research Article


Objectives: To evaluate the burden of illness in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), in terms of resource utilisation (direct and indirect) and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), in individuals with IBS who meet Rome I and Rome II criteria.

Methods: A cross-sectional study, carried out by personal interview, on a representative sample (n = 2000) of the Spanish population. Individuals with suspected IBS were identified via a screening question and subsequently given an epidemiological questionnaire to complete. The questionnaire collected information on IBS symptoms, resource utilisation, and HR-QOL [Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36)].

Results: Sixty-five individuals met Rome II criteria for IBS, while 146 individuals met exclusively Rome I criteria. Of Rome II individuals, 67.7% had consulted some type of healthcare professional in the previous 12 months, compared with only 41.8% of those individuals meeting exclusively Rome I criteria (p < 0.001). In the same vein, similar findings were observed (p < 0.01) for the variables: ‘diagnostic tests’ (35.4 vs 17.1%); ‘drug consumption’ (70.8 vs 45.2%); and ‘reduced performance in main activity’ (60 vs 27.4%). Compared with the general population, the study sample reported significantly worse HR-QOL scores in four dimensions of the SF-36 (‘bodily pain’, ‘vitality’, ‘social functioning’ and ‘role-emotional’. Additionally, individuals meeting Rome II criteria reported worse HR-QOL scores than those individuals meeting exclusively Rome I criteria, especially in the ‘bodily pain’ and ‘general health’ dimensions.

Conclusions: The burden of illness in IBS is important and correlated to the diagnostic criteria employed. Individuals who met Rome II criteria reported a higher level of resource utilisation and worse HR-QOL than individuals meeting exclusively Rome I criteria.



This study was supported/funded by Novartis and Glaxo-Wellcome.


  1. 1.
    Weisbrod B. Economics of public health. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byford S, Torgerson DJ, Raftery J. Cost of illness studies. BMJ 2000; 320: 1335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lubitz JD, Riley GF. Trends in medicare payments in the last year of life. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1092–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs P. The economics of health and medical care. 3rd ed. Rockville: Aspen Publishers, 1991Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mearin F, Badia X, Balboa A, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome prevalence varies enormously depending on the employed diagnostic criteria: comparison of Rome II vs previous criteria in a general population. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001; 36 (11): 1155–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones R, Lydeard S. Irritable bowel syndrome in the general population. BMJ 1992; 304: 87–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Talley NJ, Zinsmeister AR, Van Dyke C, et al. Epidemiology of colonic symptoms and the irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1991; 101: 927–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agreus L, Svardsudd K, Nyren O, et al. The epidemiology of abdominal symptoms: prevalence and demographic characteristics in a Swedish adult population. A report from the Abdominal Symptom Study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1994; 29: 102–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bommelaer G, Rouch M, Dapoigny M, et al. Epidemiology of the irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 1990; 14: 9C–12CPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kennedy TM, Jones RH, Hungin APS, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome, gastro-esophageal reflux, and bronchial hyper-responsiveness in the general population. Gut 1998; 43: 770–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saito YA, Locke GR, Talley NJ, et al. A comparison of the Rome and manning criteria for case identification in epidemiological investigations of irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 2816–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boyce PM, Koloski N, Talley NJ. Irritable bowel syndrome according to varying diagnostic criteria: are the new Rome II criteria unnecessarily restrictive for research and practice? Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95 (11): 3176–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Camilleri M, Williams DE. Economic burden of irritable bowel syndrome proposed strategies to control expenditures. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (4): 331–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heaton KW, O’Donell LJD, Braddon FEM, et al. Symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome in a British urban community: consulters and nonconsulters. Gastroenterology 1992; 102: 1962–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Talley NJ, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ. Irritable bowel syndrome in a community: symptom subgroup, risk factors and health care utilization. J Epidemiol 1995; 142: 76–83Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Talley NJ, Gabriel SE, Harmsen WS, et al. Medical costs in community individuals with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1995; 109: 1736–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hahn BA, Yan S, Strassels S. Impact of irritable bowel syndrome on quality of life and resource use in the United States and United Kingdom. Digestion 1999; 60: 77–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chassany O, Bergmann JF. Quality of life in irritable bowel syndrome, effect of therapy. Eur J Surg 1998; Suppl. 583: 81–6Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whitehead WE, Burnett CK, Cook EW, et al. Impact of irritable bowel syndrome on quality of life. Dig Dis Sci 1996; 41: 2248–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sperber AD, Safieh YA, Jaffer AA, et al. A comparison of the prevalence of IBS using Rome I and Rome II criteria in an epidemiological survey [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2000; 118: 397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson WG, Longstreth GF, Drossman DA, et al. Functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain. Gut 1999; 45 Suppl. 2: 1143–7Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson WG, Dotevall G, Drossman DA, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome: guidelines for the diagnosis. Gastroenterol Int 1989; 2: 92–5Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 1998. España en cifras. Madrid: INE, 1998Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alonso J, Prieto L, Antó JM. The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey: a measure of clinical outcomes. Med Clin (Barc) 1995; 104: 771–6Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alonso J, Regidor E, Barrio G, et al. Population-based reference values for the Spanish version of the Health Survey SF-36. Med Clin (Barc) 1998; 111: 410–6Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ho KY, Kang JY, Seow A. Prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in a multiracial Asian population, with particular reference to reflux-type symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93: 1816–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Akehurst RL, Brazier JE, Mathers N. Health-related quality of life and cost impact of irritable bowel syndrome in a UK primary care setting. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (7): 455–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hahn BA, Kirchdoerfer LJ, Fullerton S, et al. Patient-perceived severity of irritable bowel syndrome in relation to symptoms, health resource utilization and quality of life. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1997; 11: 553–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sandler RS. Epidemiology of irritable bowel syndrome in the United States. Gastroenterology 1990; 99: 409–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drossman DA, Li Z, Andruzzi E, et al. US householder survey of functional gastrointestinal disorders: prevalence, sociodemography, and health impact. Dig Dis Sci 1993; 38: 1569–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hahn BA, Saunders WB, Maier WC. Differences between individuals with self-reported irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and IBS-like symptoms. Dig Dis Sci 1997; 42: 2585–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Luscombe FA. Health-related quality of life and associated psychosocial factors in irritable bowel syndrome: a review. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 161–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alonso J, Prieto L, Ferrer M, et al. Testing the measurement properties of the Spanish version of the SF-36 health survey among male patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1087–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Badia X, Castro D, Conejero J, et al. Validity of the King’s Health Questionnaire in the assessment of quality of life in patients with urinary incontinence. Med Clin (Barc) 2000; 114: 647–52Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gralnek IM, Hays RD, Kilbourne A, et al. The impact of irritable bowel syndrome on health related quality of life. Gastroenterology 2000; 119: 654–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Encuesta nacional de salud de España 1997. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, 1999Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zinn C. Women consume far more of health budget than expected. BMJ 1998; 317: 838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rice DP. Cost-of-illness studies: fact or fiction? Lancet 1994; 344: 1519–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shiell A, Gerard K, Donaldson C. Cost of illness studies: an aid to decision-making? Health Policy 1987; 8: 317–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xavier Badia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fermin Mearin
    • 3
  • Agustin Balboa
    • 4
  • Eva Baró
    • 2
  • Ellen Caldwell
    • 5
  • Mercedes Cucala
    • 5
  • Manuel Díaz-Rubio
    • 6
  • Arturo Fueyo
    • 7
  • Julio Ponce
    • 8
  • Mentse Roset
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nicholas J. Talley
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of Clinical EpidemiologyHospital de la Santa Creu i Sant PauBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Health Outcomes Research EuropeBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Hospital Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Hospital Comarcal de la SelvaBarcelonaSpain
  5. 5.Novartis FarmacéuticaBarcelonaSpain
  6. 6.Hospital Clínico San CarlosMadridSpain
  7. 7.GlaxoWellcomeMadridSpain
  8. 8.Hospital de la FeValenciaSpain
  9. 9.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations