BACKGROUND/AIMS: Reliable diagnostic instruments for measuring the presence of functional gastrointestinal disorders based on the Rome III criteria have been lacking in Japan. The aims of the present study were to translate and validate the Rome III diagnostic questionnaire which was widely used in Western countries. METHODS: The original version of Rome III diagnostic questionnaire was translated from English into Japanese through 3 independent forward translations, resolution, back translation and reconciliation of the differences. Forty-nine patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), 32 patients with functional dyspepsia (FD) and 56 subjects without any current GI symptoms as controls were recruited from three hospitals located in different regions of Japan and completed the IBS and FD diagnostic modules twice within 14 days. Kappa statistic was used to assess test-retest reliability. The sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic module for distinguishing IBS or FD patients from controls was tested. RESULTS: Median kappa statistics were 0.63 for the translated IBS diagnostic module and 0.68 for the FD module. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predict value of the IBS module against physician diagnosis was 61.2%, 100%, and 100% and those of the FD module was 53.2%, 98.2%, and 94.4%, respectively. Meanwhile, IBS patients were significantly more likely to report blood in stools compared to controls (18.4% vs 1.8%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The IBS and FD diagnostic modules on the Japanese version of the Rome III diagnostic questionnaire are valid and reliable. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the diagnostic utility of the red flag questionnaire.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group* ; Diagnosis ; Dyspepsia* ; Gastrointestinal Diseases ; Humans ; Irritable Bowel Syndrome* ; Japan ; Reproducibility of Results* ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Translations

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS: Weexamined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer's direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS: For participants with triglycerides <2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P<0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For participants with triglycerides > or =2.26 mmol/L (> or =200 mg/dL) and <4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS: Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.
Cardiovascular Diseases ; Cholesterol ; Cholesterol, LDL ; Humans ; Indicators and Reagents ; Triglycerides