Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 May 21;19(1):75.
doi: 10.1186/s12876-019-0994-0.

Defining constipation to estimate its prevalence in the community: results from a national survey

Affiliations

Defining constipation to estimate its prevalence in the community: results from a national survey

Barry L Werth et al. BMC Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Background: Different definitions of constipation have been used to estimate its prevalence in the community but this creates difficulties when comparing results from various studies. This study explores the impact of different definitions on prevalence estimates in the same population and compares the performance of simple definitions with the Rome III criteria.

Methods: The prevalence of constipation in a large nationally representative sample of community-dwelling adults was estimated using five simple definitions of constipation and compared with definitions based on the Rome III criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, were calculated for each definition using the Rome III criteria as the gold standards for chronic and sub-chronic constipation.

Results: Prevalence estimates for the five simple definitions ranged from 9.4 to 58.9%, while the prevalence estimates using the Rome III criteria were 24.0% (95%CI: 22.1, 25.9) for chronic constipation and 39.6% (95%CI: 37.5, 41.7) for sub-chronic constipation. None of the simple definitions were adequate compared to the Rome III criteria. Self-reported constipation over the past 12 months had the highest sensitivity (91.1%, 95%CI: 88.8, 93.4) and negative predictive value (94.5%, 95%CI: 93.1, 96.1) compared to the Rome III criteria for chronic constipation but an unacceptably low specificity (51.3%, 95%CI: 48.8, 53.8) and positive predictive value (37.1%, 95%CI: 34.4, 39.9).

Conclusions: The definition used to identify constipation within a population has a considerable impact on the prevalence estimate obtained. Simple definitions, commonly used in research, performed poorly compared with the Rome III criteria. Studies estimating population prevalence of constipation should use definitions based on the Rome criteria where possible.

Keywords: Adults; Constipation; Epidemiology; Measurement; Prevalence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

    1. Dennison C, Prasad M, Lloyd A, Bhattacharyya SK, Dhawan R, Coyne K. The health-related quality of life and economic burden of constipation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(5):461–476. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200523050-00006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Belsey J, Greenfield S, Candy D, Geraint M. Systematic review: impact of constipation on quality of life in adults and children. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31(9):938–949. - PubMed
    1. Nyrop KA, Palsson OS, Levy RL, Von Korff M, Feld AD, Turner MJ, Whitehead WE. Costs of health care for irritable bowel syndrome, chronic constipation, functional diarrhoea and functional abdominal pain. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26(2):237–248. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03370.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Singh G, Lingala V, Wang H, Vadhavkar S, Kahler KH, Mithal A, Triadafilopoulos G. Use of health care resources and cost of care for adults with constipation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(9):1053–1058. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.04.019. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mohaghegh Shalmani H, Soori H, Khoshkrood Mansoori B, Vahedi M, Moghimi-Dehkordi B, Pourhoseingholi MA, Norouzinia M, Zali MR. Direct and indirect medical costs of functional constipation: a population-based study. Int J Color Dis. 2011;26(4):515–522. doi: 10.1007/s00384-010-1077-4. - DOI - PubMed