Douglas A. Drossman

Bio: Douglas A. Drossman is an academic researcher from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The author has contributed to research in topics: Irritable bowel syndrome & Psychosocial. The author has an hindex of 89, co-authored 375 publications receiving 36437 citations. Previous affiliations of Douglas A. Drossman include University of Rochester Medical Center & Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

Functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain.

Abstract: The Rome diagnostic criteria for the functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain are used widely in research and practice. A committee consensus approach, including criticism from multinational expert reviewers, was used to revise the diagnostic criteria and update diagnosis and treatment recommendations, based on research results. The terminology was clarified and the diagnostic criteria and management recommendations were revised. A functional bowel disorder (FBD) is diagnosed by characteristic symptoms for at least 12 weeks during the preceding 12 months in the absence of a structural or biochemical explanation. The irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal bloating, functional constipation, and functional diarrhea are distinguished by symptom-based diagnostic criteria. Unspecified FBD lacks criteria for the other FBDs. Diagnostic testing is individualized, depending on patient age, primary symptom characteristics, and other clinical and laboratory features. Functional abdominal pain (FAP) is defined as either the FAP syndrome, which requires at least six months of pain with poor relation to gut function and loss of daily activities, or unspecified FAP, which lacks criteria for the FAP syndrome. An organic cause for the pain must be excluded, but aspects of the patient's pain behavior are of primary importance. Treatment of the FBDs relies upon confident diagnosis, explanation, and reassurance. Diet alteration, drug treatment, and psychotherapy may be beneficial, depending on the symptoms and psychological features.

U.S. householder survey of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Prevalence, sociodemography, and health impact.

Abstract: Our objective was to obtain national data of the estimated prevalence, sociodemographic relationships, and health impact of persons with functional gastrointestinal disorders. We surveyed a stratified probability random sample of U.S householders selected from a data base of a national market firm (National Family Opinion, Inc.). Questions were asked about bowel symptoms, sociodemographic associations, work absenteeism, and physician visits. The sampling frame was constructed to be demographically similar to the U.S. householder population based on geographic region, age of householder, population density, household income and household size. Of 8250 mailings, 5430 were returned suitable for analysis (66% response). The survey assessed the prevalence of 20 functional gastrointestinal syndromes based on fulfillment of multinational diagnostic (Rome) criteria. Additional variables studied included: demographic status, work absenteeism, health care use, employment status, family income, geographic area of residence, population density, and number of persons in household. For this sample, 69% reported having at least one of 20 functional gastrointestinal syndromes in the previous three months. The symptoms were attributed to four major anatomic regions: esophageal (42%), gastroduodenal (26%), bowel (44%), and anorectal (26%), with considerable overlap. Females reported greater frequencies of globus, functional dysphagia, irritable bowel syndrome, functional constipation, functional abdominal pain, functional biliary pain and dyschezia; males reported greater frequencies of aerophagia and functional bloating. Symptom reporting, except for incontinence, declines with age, and low income is associated with greater symptom reporting. The rate of work/school absenteeism and physician visits is increased for those having a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Furthermore, the greatest rates are associated with those having gross fecal incontinence and certain more painful functional gastrointestinal disorders such as chronic abdominal pain, biliary pain, functional dyspepsia and IBS. Preliminary information on the prevalence, socio-demographic features and health impact is provided for persons who fulfill diagnostic criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders.

Pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders in adults.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Somatoform disorders are characterised by chronic, medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS). Although different medications are part of treatment routines for people with somatoform disorders in clinics and private practices, there exists no systematic review or meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of these medications. We aimed to synthesise to improve optimal treatment decisions.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders (specifically somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, and pain disorder) in adults.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) (to 17 January 2014). This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). To identify ongoing trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials metaRegister, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry. For grey literature, we searched ProQuest Dissertation {\&} Theses Database, OpenGrey, and BIOSIS Previews. We handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of potentially relevant papers and systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs or cluster RCTs of pharmacological interventions versus placebo, treatment as usual, another medication, or a combination of different medications for somatoform disorders in adults. We included people fulfilling standardised diagnostic criteria for somatisation disorder, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, somatoform autonomic dysfunction, or somatoform pain disorder.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author and one research assistant independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included the severity of MUPS on a continuous measure, and acceptability of treatment.MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 RCTs (33 reports), with 2159 participants, in the review. They examined the efficacy of different types of antidepressants, the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic, antipsychotics alone, or natural products (NPs). The duration of the studies ranged between two and 12 weeks.One meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies showed no clear evidence of a significant difference between tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and placebo for the outcome severity of MUPS (SMD -0.13; 95{\%} CI -0.39 to 0.13; 2 studies, 239 participants; I(2) = 2{\%}; low-quality evidence). For new-generation antidepressants (NGAs), there was very low-quality evidence showing they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.91; 95{\%} CI -1.36 to -0.46; 3 studies, 243 participants; I(2) = 63{\%}). For NPs there was low-quality evidence that they were effective in reducing the severity of MUPS (SMD -0.74; 95{\%} CI -0.97 to -0.51; 2 studies, 322 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).One meta-analysis showed no clear evidence of a difference between TCAs and NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.55 to 0.23; 3 studies, 177 participants; I(2) = 42{\%}; low-quality evidence). There was also no difference between NGAs and other NGAs for severity of MUPS (SMD -0.16; 95{\%} CI -0.45 to 0.14; 4 studies, 182 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}).Finally, one meta-analysis comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with a combination of SSRIs and antipsychotics showed low-quality evidence in favour of combined treatment for severity of MUPS (SMD 0.77; 95{\%} CI 0.32 to 1.22; 2 studies, 107 participants; I(2) = 23{\%}).Differences regarding the acceptability of the treatment (rate of all-cause drop-outs) were neither found between NGAs and placebo (RR 1.01, 95{\%} CI 0.64 to 1.61; 2 studies, 163 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence) or NPs and placebo (RR 0.85, 95{\%} CI 0.40 to 1.78; 3 studies, 506 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between TCAs and other medication (RR 1.48, 95{\%} CI 0.59 to 3.72; 8 studies, 556 participants; I(2) =14{\%}; low-quality evidence); nor between antidepressants and the combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic (RR 0.80, 95{\%} CI 0.25 to 2.52; 2 studies, 118 participants; I(2) = 0{\%}; low-quality evidence). Percental attrition rates due to adverse effects were high in all antidepressant treatments (0{\%} to 32{\%}), but low for NPs (0{\%} to 1.7{\%}).The risk of bias was high in many domains across studies. Seventeen trials (65.4{\%}) gave no information about random sequence generation and only two (7.7{\%}) provided information about allocation concealment. Eighteen studies (69.2{\%}) revealed a high or unclear risk in blinding participants and study personnel; 23 studies had high risk of bias relating to blinding assessors. For the comparison NGA versus placebo, there was relatively high imprecision and heterogeneity due to one outlier study. Although we identified 26 studies, each comparison only contained a few studies and small numbers of participants so the results were imprecise.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review found very low-quality evidence for NGAs and low-quality evidence for NPs being effective in treating somatoform symptoms in adults when compared with placebo. There was some evidence that different classes of antidepressants did not differ in efficacy; however, this was limited and of low to very low quality. These results had serious shortcomings such as the high risk of bias, strong heterogeneity in the data, and small sample sizes. Furthermore, the significant effects of antidepressant treatment have to be balanced against the relatively high rates of adverse effects. Adverse effects produced by medication can have amplifying effects on symptom perceptions, particularly in people focusing on somatic symptoms without medical causes. We can only draw conclusions about short-term efficacy of the pharmacological interventions because no trial included follow-up assessments. For each of the comparisons where there were available data on acceptability rates (NGAs versus placebo, NPs versus placebo, TCAs versus other medication, and antidepressants versus a combination of an antidepressant and an antipsychotic), no clear differences between the intervention and comparator were found.Future high-quality research should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of medications other than antidepressants, to compare antidepressants more thoroughly, and to follow-up participants over longer periods (the longest follow up was just 12 weeks). Another idea for future research would be to include other outcomes such as functional impairment or dysfunctional behaviours and cognitions as well as the classical outcomes such as symptom severity, depression, or anxiety.

Principles of Neural Science

Abstract: I have developed "tennis elbow" from lugging this book around the past four weeks, but it is worth the pain, the effort, and the aspirin. It is also worth the (relatively speaking) bargain price. Including appendixes, this book contains 894 pages of text. The entire panorama of the neural sciences is surveyed and examined, and it is comprehensive in its scope, from genomes to social behaviors. The editors explicitly state that the book is designed as "an introductory text for students of biology, behavior, and medicine," but it is hard to imagine any audience, interested in any fragment of neuroscience at any level of sophistication, that would not enjoy this book. The editors have done a masterful job of weaving together the biologic, the behavioral, and the clinical sciences into a single tapestry in which everyone from the molecular biologist to the practicing psychiatrist can find and appreciate his or