BACKGROUND: It has been unclear as to whether the Rome II criteria could be applied to patients in the Asia region with functional gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. The aim of the present study was to determine if symptoms of Asian patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders formed groups which corresponded to the Rome II diagnostic criteria.
METHODS: A modified English version of Talley's bowel disease questionnaire was developed in collaboration with various research teams in accordance with the Rome II criteria. This instrument was translated into the local languages of the following nine Asian regions: China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. From September to December 2001, newly enrolled outpatients attending 14 GI or medical clinics in these regions were invited to complete the questionnaire. From these respondents, patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders fulfilling the '12 weeks out of 12 months' criteria were separated for further analysis. Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to identify symptom clusters or factors. These factors were compared with the existing classification of functional GI diseases derived from the Rome II criteria.
RESULTS: Factor analysis of symptoms from 1012 functional GI patients supported the Rome II classification of the following groups of functional GI disorders: diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome, functional constipation, functional dyspepsia, functional abdominal pain syndrome, functional heartburn, and functional vomiting. Functional diarrhea was combined with functional anorectal disorders, and globus merged with functional dysphagia into one factor. Some of the functional dyspepsia, abdominal bloating and belching symptoms were loaded into one factor.
CONCLUSIONS: Factor analysis of symptoms from a sample of Asian patients with functional GI disorders partially supported the use of the Rome II classification.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.