A. P. S. Hungin

Significant progress and new insights have been gained in the 4 years since the first Maastricht Consensus Report, necessitating an update of the original guidelines. To achieve this, the European Helicobacter Pylori Study Group organized a meeting of specialists and experts from around the world, representatives from National Gastroenterology Societies and general practitioners from Europe to establish updated guidelines on the current management of Helicobacter pylori infection. The meeting took place on 21-22 September 2000. A "test and treat" approach is recommended in adult patients under the age of 45 years (the age cut-off may vary locally) presenting in primary care with persistent dyspepsia, having excluded those with predominantly gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and those with alarm symptoms. Diagnosis of infection should be by urea breath test or stool antigen test. As in the previous guidelines, the eradication of H. pylori is strongly recommended in all patients with peptic ulcer, including those with complications, in those with low-grade gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, in those with atrophic gastritis and following gastric cancer resection. It is also strongly recommended in patients who are first-degree relatives of gastric cancer patients and according to patients' wishes after full consultation. It is advised that H. pylori eradication is considered to be an appropriate option in infected patients with functional dyspepsia, as it leads to long-term symptom improvement in a subset of patients. There was consensus that the eradication of H. pylori is not associated with the development of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in most cases, and does not exacerbate existing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. It was agreed that the eradication of H. pylori prior to the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduces the incidence of peptic ulcer, but does not enhance the healing of gastric or duodenal ulcer in patients receiving antisecretory therapy who continue to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Treatment should be thought of as a package which considers first- and second-line eradication therapies together. First-line therapy should be with triple therapy using a proton pump inhibitor or ranitidine bismuth citrate, combined with clarithromycin and amoxicillin or metronidazole. Second-line therapy should use quadruple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor, bismuth, metronidazole and tetracycline. Where bismuth is not available, second-line therapy should be with proton pump inhibitor-based triple therapy. If second-line quadruple therapy fails in primary care, patients should be referred to a specialist. Subsequent failures should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the specialist. In patients with uncomplicated duodenal ulcer, eradication therapy does not need to be followed by further antisecretory treatment. Successful eradication should always be confirmed by urea breath test or an endoscopy-based test if endoscopy is clinically indicated. Stool antigen test is the alternative if urea breath test is not available.

AIM: To determine the prevalence, symptom pattern and impact of the irritable bowel syndrome, across eight European countries, using a standardized methodology. METHODS: A community survey of 41 984 individuals was performed using quota sampling and random digit telephone dialing to identify those with diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome or those meeting diagnostic criteria, followed by in-depth interviews. RESULTS: The overall prevalence was 11.5% (6.2-12%); 9.6% had current symptoms, 4.8% had been formally diagnosed and a further 2.9%, 4.2% and 6.5% met the Rome II, Rome I or Manning criteria, respectively. Bowel habit classification varied by criteria: 63% had an 'alternating' bowel habit by Rome II vs. 21% by self-report. On average, 69% reported symptoms lasting for 1 h, twice daily, for 7 days a month. Irritable bowel syndrome sufferers reported more peptic ulcer (13% vs. 6%), reflux (21% vs. 7%) and appendectomy (17% vs. 11%), but not hysterectomy, cholecystectomy or bladder procedures. Ninety per cent had consulted in primary care and 17% in hospital; 69% had used medication. Irritable bowel syndrome substantially interfered with lifestyle and caused absenteeism. CONCLUSIONS: Irritable bowel syndrome is common with major effects on lifestyle and health care. The majority of cases are undiagnosed and the prevalence varies strikingly between countries. Diagnostic criteria are associated with varying prevalences and bowel habit sub-types. This limits their utility in clinical practice and the transferability of research findings using them.

OBJECTIVES: The global prevalence of IBS is difficult to ascertain, particularly in light of the heterogeneity of published epidemiological studies. The aim was to conduct a literature review, by experts from around the world, of community-based studies on IBS prevalence. DESIGN: Searches were conducted using predetermined search terms and eligibility criteria, including papers in all languages. Pooled prevalence rates were calculated by combining separate population survey prevalence estimates to generate an overall combined meta-prevalence estimate. The heterogeneity of studies was assessed. RESULTS: 1451 papers were returned and 83, including 288 103 participants in 41 countries, met inclusion criteria. The mean prevalence among individual countries ranged from 1.1% in France and Iran to 35.5% in Mexico. There was significant variance in pooled regional prevalence rates ranging from 17.5% (95% CI 16.9% to 18.2%) in Latin America, 9.6% (9.5% to 9.8%) in Asia, 7.1% (8.0% to 8.3%) in North America/Europe/Australia/New Zealand, to 5.8% (5.6% to 6.0%) in the Middle East and Africa. There was a significant degree of heterogeneity with the percentage of residual variation due to heterogeneity at 99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The main finding is the extent of methodological variance in the studies reviewed and the degree of heterogeneity among them. Based on this, we concluded that publication of a single pooled global prevalence rate, which is easily calculated, would not be appropriate or contributory. Furthermore, we believe that future studies should focus on regional and cross-cultural differences that are more likely to shed light on pathophysiology.

BACKGROUND: In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions, and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalize the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. A Delphi panel (n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title (n = 1), introduction (n = 3), methods (n = 21), results (n = 5), discussion (n = 2), and other information (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigor of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.

BACKGROUND: The impact of irritable bowel syndrome, a gastrointestinal motility disorder, is underestimated and poorly quantified, as clinicians may see only a minority of sufferers. AIM: To determine the prevalence, symptom patterns and impact of irritable bowel syndrome in the US. METHODS: This two-phase community survey used quota sampling and random-digit telephone dialing (screening interview) to identify individuals with medically diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome or individuals not formally diagnosed, but fulfilling irritable bowel syndrome diagnostic criteria (Manning, Rome I or II). Information on irritable bowel syndrome symptoms, general health status, lifestyle and impact of symptoms on individuals' lives was collected using in-depth follow-up interviews. Data were also collected for healthy controls identified in the screening interviews. RESULTS: The total prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in 5009 screening interviews was 14.1% (medically diagnosed: 3.3%; undiagnosed, but meeting irritable bowel syndrome criteria: 10.8%). Abdominal pain/discomfort was the most common symptom prompting consultation. Most sufferers (74% medically diagnosed; 63% undiagnosed) reported alternating constipation and diarrhoea. Previously diagnosed gastrointestinal disorders occurred more often in sufferers than non-sufferers. Irritable bowel syndrome sufferers had more days off work (6.4 vs. 3.0) and days in bed, and reduced activities to a greater extent than non-sufferers. CONCLUSIONS: Most (76.6%) irritable bowel syndrome sufferers in the US are undiagnosed. Irritable bowel syndrome has a substantial impact on sufferers' well-being and health, with considerable socioeconomic consequences.