Pain is a cardinal symptom cutting across Rome IV anatomical categories in disorders of gut‐brain interaction: A network‐based approach

• Published in: Neurogastroenterology and motility 2024-10, Vol.36 (10), p.e14877-n/a
• Main Authors: Burton‐Murray, Helen, Guadagnoli, Livia, Vanzhula, Irina A., Brown, Tiffany A., Sperber, Ami D., Palsson, Olafur, Bangdiwala, Shrikant I., Van Oudenhove, Lukas, Staller, Kyle
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: abdominal pain; Anorectal; community analysis; Constipation; Digestive system; disorders of gut‐brain interaction; Epidemiology; functional gastrointestinal disorders; Gastrointestinal tract; irritable bowel syndrome; network analysis; Pain
• ISSN: 1350-1925; 1365-2982; 1365-2982
• DOI: 10.1111/nmo.14877

Introduction Disorders of gut‐brain interaction (DGBI) are symptom‐based disorders categorized by anatomic location but have high overlap and heterogeneity. Viewing DGBI symptoms on a spectrum (i.e. dimensionally) rather than categorically may better inform interventions to accommodate complex clinical presentations. We aimed to evaluate symptom networks to identify how DGBI symptoms interact. Methods We used the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire continuously/ordinally scored items collected from the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study. We excluded participants who reported ≥1 organic/structural gastrointestinal disorder(s). We sought to (1) identify core symptoms in the DGBI symptom networks, (2) identify bridge pathways between Rome IV diagnostic categories (esophageal, bowel, gastroduodenal, anorectal), and (3) explore how symptoms group together into communities. Results Of 54,127 adults, 20,229 met criteria for at least one DGBI (age mean = 42.2 ± 15.5; 57% female). General abdominal pain and epigastric pain were the core symptoms in the DGBI symptom network (i.e., had the strongest connections to other symptoms). Pain symptoms emerged as bridge pathways across existing DGBI diagnostic anatomic location (i.e., abdominal pain connected to chest pain, epigastric pain, rectal pain). Without a priori category definitions, exploratory network community analysis showed that symptoms grouped together into “pain,” “gastroduodenal,” and “constipation,” rather than into groups by anatomic location. Conclusion Our findings suggest pain symptoms are central and serve as a key connection to other symptoms, crosscutting anatomic location. Future longitudinal research is needed to test symptom network relations longitudinally and investigate whether targeting pain symptoms (rather than anatomic‐ or disorder‐specific symptoms) has clinical impact. Our findings suggest DGBI pain symptoms are central and serve as a key connection to other symptoms, crosscutting anatomic location. Future longitudinal research is needed to test symptom network relations longitudinally and investigate whether targeting pain symptoms (rather than anatomic‐ or disorder‐specific symptoms) has clinical impact.