Systematic review: instruments to assess abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consensus on standard methods to assess chronic abdominal pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is currently lacking. AIM: To systematically review the literature with respect to instruments of measurement of chronic abdominal pain in IBS patients. METHODS: Systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline databases for studies using pain measurement instruments in patients with IBS. RESULTS: One hundred and ten publications were reviewed. A multitude of different instruments is currently used to assess chronic abdominal pain in IBS patients. The single-item methods, e.g. the validated 10-point numeric rating scale (NRS), and questionnaires assessing gastrointestinal symptoms severity, focus mostly on the assessment of only the intensity of abdominal pain. Of these questionnaires, the validated IBS-Symptom Severity Scale includes the broadest measurement of pain-related aspects. General pain questionnaires and electronic momentary symptom assessment tools have been used to study abdominal pain in IBS patients, but have not yet been validated for this purpose. The evidence for the use of provocation tests, e.g. the rectal barostat with balloon distention, for measurement of abdominal pain in IBS is weak, due to the poor correlation between visceral pain thresholds assessed by provocation tests and abdominal pain as assessed by retrospective questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The multitude of different instruments to measure chronic abdominal pain in IBS makes it difficult to compare endpoints of published studies. There is need for validated instruments to assess chronic abdominal pain in IBS patients, that overcome the limitations of the currently available methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".