|
Gabrio
Bassotti, Sezione di Gastroenterologia ed Epatologia,
Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Sperimentale, Università di
Perugia
Massimo Bellini, Pietro Alduini, Sezione di Gastroenterologia,
Dipartimento di Medicina Interna, Università di Pisa
Filippo Pucciani, Clinica Chirurgica Generale e Discipline
Chirurgiche, Università di Firenze
Renato Bocchini, UO di Medicina Polispecialistica, Azienda Sanitaria
Locale, Cesena
Antonio Bove, UO di Gastroenterologia ed Endoscopia Digestiva,
Azienda Ospedaliera "A. Cardarelli", Napoli
Edda Battaglia, Dipartimento di Fisiopatologia Clinica,
Università di Torino
Paolo Bruzzi, Struttura Complessa di Epidemiologia Clinica,
IST Genova, Italy
Italian Constipation Study Group (the list of all participating
members of the Italian Constipation Study Group is given at the end
of the paper)
Correspondence to: Dr. Gabrio Bassotti, Strada del Cimitero,
2/a, 06131 San Marco (Perugia), Italy.
gabassot@tin.it
Telephone: +39-75-5847570
Received: 2003-09-15
Accepted: 2003-11-06
Abstract
AIM: Bowel habits are difficult to study, and most data on
defecatory behaviour in the general population have been obtained on
the basis of recalled interview. The objective assessment of this
physiological function and its pathological aspects continues to
pose a difficult challenge. The aim of this prospective study was to
objectively assess the bowel habits and related aspects in a large
sample drawn from the general population.
METHODS:
Over a two-month period 488 subjects were prospectively recruited
from the general population and asked to compile a daily diary on
their bowel habits and associated signs and symptoms (the latter
according to Rome II criteria). A total of 298 (61%) participants
returned a correctly compiled record, so that data for more than 8
000 patient-days were available for statistical analysis.
RESULTS:
The average defecatory frequency was once per day (range of
0.25-3.25) and was similar between males and females. However,
higher frequencies of straining at stool (P=0.001), a feeling
of incomplete emptying and/or difficult evacuation (P=0.0001),
and manual manoeuvres to facilitate defecation (P=0.046) were
reported by females as compared to males.
CONCLUSION:
This study represents one of the first attempts to objectively and
prospectively assess bowel habits in a sample of the general
population over a relatively long period of time. The variables we
analyzed are coherent with the criteria commonly used for the
clinical assessment of functional constipation, and can provide a
useful adjunt for a better evaluation of constipated patients.
Bassotti
G, Bellini M, Pucciani F, Bocchini R, Bove A, Alduini P, Battaglia
E, Bruzzi P, Italian Constipation Study Group. An extended
assessment of bowel habits in a general population. World J
Gastroenterol 2004;
10(5): 713-716
http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/10/713.asp
INTRODUCTION
Bowel habits are a difficult function to study objectively
because of their highly private nature and negative associations.
Therefore, it is not surprising that they represent one of the least
understood aspects of human behaviour[1]. In the past,
most knowledge of bowel habits was drawn from limited data on small
groups of subjects (nurses, jail prisoners, elderly people,
students)[2-5]. More recently, studies aimed generically
at investigating functional gastrointestinal disorders[6-10]
have yielded data on large numbers of subjects by means of telephone
interviews or mailed questionnaires[11-14]. However,
these studies and other reports have all been retrospective in
nature and based on the subjects' assertions regarding their recent
bowel function[1,15,16]. More objective investigations
have assessed small groups of subjects for limited periods of time
(e.g. one week)[17].
Prospective studies on bowel habits conducted over an adequate
period of time in the general population are still lacking. The aim
of our prospective study was to objectively assess the frequency and
characteristics of defecation in a sample of the general population
over a longer period of time.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
During a two-month period a questionnaire was consecutively
distributed to 488 relatives or friends of patients attending the
outpatient gastrointestinal clinic in six centres located in
different regions of Italy (two in the north, two in the centre, and
two in the south). A total of 259 women and 229 men received the
form. To obtain the most objective possible data on bowel habits,
the questionnaire took the form of a diary covering a period of 4 wk
in which "yes-no" responses were to be given daily to six
questions (Table 1). Drawing upon the Rome II criteria for
functional constipation[18], data on the following
symptoms and signs were recorded each day, namely number of bowel
movements, straining during bowel movements, feeling of incomplete
emptying and/or difficult evacuation, manual manoeuvres to
facilitate defecation, lumpy or hard stools. In addition, the use of
laxatives was recorded.
The
questionnaires were anonymous, and the only personal information the
participants were required to give was their age and sex. All
subjects received an exhaustive explanation about the aim of the
study and the structure of the questionnaire.
Each
centre received approval from the local ethics commitee, the written
consent of all subjects was obtained after they had been given a
complete explanation of the aims of the study and the nature of the
questionnaire, and the study was conducted in accordance with the
Helsinki Declaration (Edinburgh revision, 2000).
For
each subject, an overall score for each variable was computed as
follows. The average number of bowel movements per day was obtained
by taking the total number of defecations reported by the
participants and divided by the total number of days in the study
period (i.e., 28). The frequency in the use of laxatives was
computed in the same way. The frequency of the four variables
associated with defecation (straining, feeling of incomplete
evacuation, need of manual help, lumpy/hard stools) was evaluated as
the ratio between the total number of episodes recorded by the
individual and the total number of bowel movements during the study
period.
Table
1
Four-week daily diary (Patients giving yes-no responses and
number of bowel movements/day were recorded)
| Questions |
Time |
| FIRST
WEEK |
Monday |
Tuesday |
Wednesday |
Thursday |
Friday |
Saturday |
Sunday |
| Bowel
movements (number/day) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Straining
at defecation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Feeling
of incomplete defecation and/or difficult evacuation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual
manoeuvres |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lumpy
or hard stools |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Use
of laxatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SECOND
WEEK |
Monday |
Tuesday |
Wednesday |
Thursday |
Friday |
Saturday |
Sunday |
| Bowel
movements (number/day) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Straining
at defecation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Feeling
of incomplete defecation and/or difficult evacuation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual
manoeuvres |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lumpy
or hard stools |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Use
of laxatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| THIRD
WEEK |
Monday |
Tuesday |
Wednesday |
Thursday |
Friday |
Saturday |
Sunday |
| Bowel
movements (number/day) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Straining
at defecation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Feeling
of incomplete defecation and/or difficult evacuation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual
manoeuvres |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lumpy
or hard stools |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Use
of laxatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FOURTH
WEEK |
Monday |
Tuesday |
Wednesday |
Thursday |
Friday |
Saturday |
Sunday |
| Bowel
movements (number/day) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Straining
at defecation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Feeling
of incomplete defecation and/or difficult evacuation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual
manoeuvres |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lumpy
or hard stools |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Use
of laxatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistical
evaluation
All group means and standard deviations (SD) were calculated
by averaging the individual scores. Comparisons among groups were
carried out using the chi-square test or non-parametric tests.
Correlations between pairs of variables were assessed by means of
the non-parametric Spearman's correlation coefficient. P values
<0.05 were chosen for rejection of the null hypothesis. Data are
presented as mean±SD.
RESULTS
A total of 298 adult subjects (163 women (54.7%), mean age 42.5±15.5
yr and 135 men (45.3%), mean age 42.4±15.9 yr) returned the
completed questionnaire. The mean response rate was 61.1 % (females
62.9 %; males 58.9 %, n.s.). Therefore, data for 8 344 d were
available for statistical analysis.
The
distribution of the participating subjects by age and sex is shown
in Table 2. Table 3 reports the frequency of defecation, expressed
as the average number of evacuations per day, the frequency of
pathological features and sensations at defecation, and the use of
laxatives per day. Overall, the frequency of bowel movements
averaged one per day (range 0.25-3.25), and was similar between
males and females. No significant intra-personal variation in the
parameters under examination was detected over the four-week period.
Higher frequencies of straining at stool (P=0.001), feeling
of incomplete emptying and/or difficult evacuation (P=0.0001),
and manual manoeuvres to facilitate defecation (P=0.046) were
reported by females as compared to males.
Table
2 Distribution for
age and sex of population under investigation
n(%)
| years |
Women |
Men |
Total |
| <20 |
3
(1.8) |
3
(2.2) |
6
(2) |
| 21-30 |
32
(19.6) |
39
(28.9) |
71
(23.8) |
| 31-40 |
59
(36.2) |
32
(23.7) |
91
(30.5) |
| 41-50 |
22
(13.5) |
21
(15.6) |
43
(14.4) |
| 51-60 |
21
(12.9) |
20
(14.8) |
41
(13.8) |
| 61-70 |
19
(11.7) |
13
(9.6) |
32
(10.7) |
| >70 |
7
(4.3) |
7
(5.2) |
14
(4.7) |
Table 4 shows the correlations between pairs of defecatory
variables. Bowel movement frequency was negatively correlated with
other features of defecation and the use of laxatives. Straining, a
sensation of incomplete/difficult evacuation, manual manoeuvres,
lumpy/hard stools and the use of laxatives were positively
correlated with each other.
Concerning
the relative weights of the single variables, it might be noted that
15 (5%) subjects showed a low frequency (<3/wk) of defecations,
35 (11.7%) straining during >1/4 defecations, 32 (10.7%)
incomplete/difficult evacuation during >1/4 defecations, 2 (0.7%)
manual manoeuvres during >1/4 defecations, and 18 (6%) lumpy/hard
stools during 1/4 defecations.
Table
3 Defecatory
frequency and defecation-related variables in our population sample
(data are expressed as mean±SD)
| Sex |
No.
of defecations/day |
Straining
at stool/defecation |
Feeling
of incomplete emptying/defecation |
Manual
help for
evacuation/defecation |
Lumpy/hard
stools/defecation |
Use of laxatives/day |
| Total |
1.00±0.4 |
0.06±0.1 |
0.06±0.15 |
0.0090±0.07 |
0.07±0.2 |
0.07±0.2 |
| Men |
1.03±0.34 |
0.05±0.13 |
0.03±0.09 |
0.0008±0.001 |
0.06±0.2 |
0.02±0.1 |
| Women |
0.97±0.4 |
0.12±0.21 |
0.09±0.2 |
0.0170±0.09 |
0.08±0.2 |
0.09±0.2 |
| P
(between sexes) |
n.s. |
0.001 |
0.0001 |
0.046 |
n.s. |
0.001 |
Table
4 Correlations
among bowel habits
|
Bowel
mov/day |
Straining |
Incomplete/difficult evacuation |
Manual
manoeuvres |
Lumpy/hard
stools |
Laxatives |
| Bowel
movements (per day) |
1 |
-0.365a |
-0.246b |
-0.123b |
-0.218b |
-0356b |
| Straining |
|
1 |
0.562b |
0.293b |
0.592b |
0.416b |
| Incomplete/difficult
evacuation |
|
|
1 |
0.327b |
0.558b |
0.273b |
| Manual
manoeuvres |
|
|
|
1 |
0.303b |
0.233b |
| Lumpy/hard
stools |
|
|
|
|
1 |
0.300b |
| Laxatives |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
bP<0.01.
DISCUSSION
Most studies on bowel habits have been based on phone interviews
and on the assumption that people would report accurately, but there
has been good evidence that bowel movement frequency might be
misreported[19,20]. Indeed, it is very difficult to
remember and report accurately one's bowel habits over recent months
in a 20 min interview. Studies have shown marked discrepancies
between recalled data and data that was recorded daily[19,21,22].
Moreover, people without a telephone or who were not at home when
contact was attempted would be excluded from any given survey[23].
Another source of bias was the possibility that symptomatic
individuals would be more keen to complete the survey process than
asymptomatic subjects, which might lead to an overestimation of the
frequency of symptoms.
Validated
and universally accepted criteria are definitely needed if
functional bowel disorders are to become a formally recognized
disease entity by physicians, patients, and society[24].
In
order to circumvent some of the methodological biases discussed
above, for this study a questionnaire designed to elicit the most
objective possible data on individual bowel habits was drawn up.
With this instrument bowel movement frequency, and sensations and
characteristics related to each bowel movement were prospectively
recorded by nearly 300 subjects on a daily basis for 4 wk. Moreover,
to obtain a geographically representative sample of our population,
participants were recruited from different parts of the country.
It
may be stressed that the 61% response rate could be considered
relatively high, given the nature of the data being sought. Studies
employing telephone interviews or mailed questionnaires have yielded
a response rate ranging from 19% to 80%. We believe that our high
response rate can be attributed to the simplicity of the
questionnaire (which examined only six items) and its complete
anonymity. A daily dial-in service might have been more reliable,
but this is costly to implement and potentially dependent on the
socio-cultural environment in which the study is conducted.
It must be pointed out that due to the recruiting procedure
used, the individuals who participated in this study were not
selected with respect to factors such as social status, education,
occupation and, possibly, the prevalence and type of bowel habits
reported. However, they were prospectively recruited and not
selected based on the basis of factors such as the presence/absence
of pathological symptoms. Nevertheless, in light of the high
participation rate, it seems reasonable to postulate that the
results of this study provide an acceptable approximation of the
prevalence and type of symptoms in a general sample of Italian
adults.
We
are certain of our findings to be underlined. Firstly, there was a
relatively large variation in bowel movement frequency, with an
average of one per day, but a range of one evacuation every 4 d to
about 3 bowel movements per day, with no differences in distribution
between the sexes. It might also be noted that 5% of the
participants reported less than 3 evacuations/week. Secondly, the
number of subjects who reported abnormal features during >1/4
defecations was low, in particular, the incidence of manual
manoeuvres to facilitate defecation was almost nil (0.7%). However,
these variables showed a positive correlation with one another.
Thirdly, the prevalence of defecation-related variables (except for
the presence of lumpy/hard stools) was significantly different
between the sexes, with a higher frequency in women, and
interestingly, all of these are variables related with pelvic floor
function. The use of laxatives was also rare (5% of the population
sample), but much (P=0.0001) more frequent among women.
The
variables analysed in this study could be helpful in the clinical
assessment of functional constipation. Our data furthermore suggest
that different symptoms and signs should be attributed to different
weights in the evaluation of constipation scores[25,26].
For instance, a value of less than one defecation per week or the
use of manual manoeuvres to facilitate defecation could represent
clinically important indications for the diagnosis of constipation.
In conclusion, this study represents one of the first
attempts to prospectively assess bowel habits in a general
population sample over a long period of time. Further studies in
"normal" subjects will obviously be needed to confirm
these observations.
The following researchers of the Italian Constipation Study
(ICS) Group participated in the study: Bassotti G, Chistolini F,
Morelli A (Perugia); Bellini M, Alduini P, Mammini C, Rappelli L,
Costa F, Stasi C, Mumolo MG, Berni I, Giorgetti S, Marchi S (Pisa);
Pucciani F, Iozzi L, Cianchi F, Cortesini C (Firenze); Bocchini R,
Cimatti M, Fornasari L, Montaletti I, Pazzi P (Cesena/Forlì); Bove
A, Balzano A (Napoli); Battaglia E, Dughera L, Emanuelli G (Torino);
Bruzzi P (Genova).
REFERENCES
1
Heaton KW, Radvan J, Cripps H, Mountford RA, Braddon FE,
Hughes AO. Defecation frequency and timing, and stool
form in the general population: a
prospective study. Gut 1992; 33: 818-824
2
Hardy TL. Order and disorder in the large intestine. Lancet
1945; i: 519-524
3
Rendtorff RC, Kashgarian M. Stool patterns of healthy adult
males. Dis Colon Rectum 1967; 10: 222-228
4
Milne JS, Wiiliamson J. Bowel habit in older people. Gerontol
Clin 1972; 14: 56-60
5
Sandler RS, Drossman DA. Bowel habits in apparently healthy
young adults not seeking health care. Dig Dis Sci
1987; 32: 841-845
6
Everhart JE, Go VLW, Johannes RS, Fitzsimmons SC, Roth HP,
White LR. A longitudinal survey of self-reported bowel
habits in the United States. Dig Dis
Sci 1989; 34: 1153-1162
7
Drossman DA, Li Z, Andruzzi E, Temple RD, Talley NJ, Thompson
WG, Whitehead WE, Janssens J, Funch-Jensen P,
Corazziari EUS. Householder survey of
functional gastrointestinal disorders. Prevalence, sociodemography
and health
impact. Dig Dis Sci 1993; 38:
1569-1580
8
Talley NJ, Weaver AL, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ. Functional
constipation, and outlet delay. A population-based study.
Gastroenterology 1993; 105: 781-790
9
Stewart WF, Liberman JN, Sandler RS, Woods MS, Stemhagen A,
Chee E, Lipton RB, Farup CE. Epidemiology of
constipation (EPOC) study in the
United States: relation of clinical subtypes to sociodemographic
features. Am J
Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 3530-3540
10
Pare P, Ferrazzi S, Thompson WG, Irvine EJ, Rance L. An
epidemiological survey of constipation in Canada: definitions,
rates, demographics, and predictors
of heath care seeking. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 3130-3137
11
Chen LY, Ho KY, Phua KH. Normal bowel habits and prevalence
of functional bowel disorders in Singaporean
adults-findings from a community
based study in Bishan. Singapore Med J 2000; 41: 255-258
12
Boekema PJ, van Dam van Isselt EF, Bots ML, Smout AJ.
Functional bowel symptoms in a general Dutch population and
associations with common stimulants.
Neth J Med 2001; 59: 23-30
13
Icks A, Haastert B, Enck P, Rathmann W, Giani G. Prevalence
of functional bowel disorders and related health care
seeking: a population-based study. Z
Gastroenterol 2002; 40: 177-183
14 Walter S, Hallbook O,
Gotthard R, Bengmark M, Sjodahl R. A population-based study on bowel
habits in a Swedish
community: prevalence of faecal
incontinence and constipation. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002; 37:
911-916
15 Levy N, Stermer E,
Steiner Z, Epstein L, Tamir A. Bowel habits in Israel. A cohort
study. J Clin Gastroenterol
1993; 16: 295-299
16 Olubuyide IO, Olawuyi
F, Fasanmade AA. Frequency of defaecation and stool consistency in
Nigerian students. J Trop
Med Hyg 1995; 98: 228-232
17 Aichbichler BW, Wenzl
HH, Santa Ana CA, Porter JL, Schiller LR, Fordtran JS. A comparison
of stool characteristics from
normal and constipated people. Dig
Dis Sci 1998; 43: 2353-2362
18 Thompson WG,
Longstreth GF, Drossman DA, Heaton KW, Irvine EJ, Müller-Lissner
SA. Functional bowel disorders
and functional abdominal pain. Gut
1999; 45 (Suppl 2): II43-II47
19
Drossman DA, Sandler
RS, McKee DC, Lovitz AJ. Bowel patterns among subjects not seeking
health care. Use of a
questionnaire to identify a
population with bowel dysfunction. Gastroenterology 1982; 83:
529-534
20
Manning AP, Wyman JB, Heaton KW. How trustworthy are bowel
histories? Comparison of recalled and recorded
information. BMJ 1976; 3: 213-214
21 Whitehead WE,
Drinkwater D, Cheskin LJ, Heller BR, Schuster MM. Constipation in
the elderly living at home. Definition,
prevalence and relationship to
lifestyle and health status. J Am Geriatr Soc 1989; 37: 423-429
22 Ashraf W, Park F, Lof
J, Quigley EM. An examination of the reliability of reported stool
frequency in the diagnosis of
idiopathic constipation. Am J
Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 26-32
23
Thompson WG, Irvine EJ,
Pare P, Ferrazzi S, Rance L. Functional gastrointestinal disorders
in Canada. First
population-based survey using Rome II
criteria with suggestions for improving the questionnaire. Dig Dis
Sci
2002; 47: 225-235
24 Drossman DA. The Rome
criteria process: diagnosis and legitimization of irritable bowel
syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol
1999; 94: 2803-2807
25 Thompson WG. And the
Working Team for functional bowel disorders. Functional bowel
disorders and functional
abdominal pain. In Drossman DA,
Richter JE, Talley NJ, Thompson WG, Corazziari E, Whitehead WE, eds.
The
functional gastrointestinal
disorders. Diagnosis, pathophysiology, and treatment. Little
Brown and Company Boston
1994: 115-173
26 Whitehead WE, Bassotti
G, Palsson O, Taub E, Cook EC, Drossman DA. Factor analysis of bowel
symptoms in U.S. and
Italian populations. Dig Liver Dis
2003; 35: 774-783
Edited
by Wang
XL Proofread by Zhu LH
| |