Psychological profiles of irritable bowel syndrome patients with different phenotypes

Michel Bouchoucha; Ghislain Devroede; Noëlle Girault-Lidvan; Maria Hejnar; Florence Mary; Robert Benamouzig

doi:10.5217/ir.2019.09171

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Volume 18(4); 2020 > Article

Original Article Functional bowel disorders Psychological profiles of irritable bowel syndrome patients with different phenotypes: Michel Bouchoucha^1,2,, Ghislain Devroede³, Noëlle Girault-Lidvan⁴, Maria Hejnar⁵, Florence Mary², Robert Benamouzig²; Intestinal Research 2020;18(4):459-468.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2019.09171
Published online: October 26, 2020

¹Department of Physiology, University René Descartes, Paris, France

²Department of Gastroenterology, Avicenne Hospital, Bobigny, France

³Department of Surgical, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

⁴Psychological Institute, Laboratory of Psychopathology and Health Processes (EA 4057), University René Descartes, Paris, France

⁵Psychiatry and Psychopathology Unit, Avicenne Hospital, Bobigny, France

Correspondence to Michel Bouchoucha, CEFRED (Centre d’Exploration Fonctionnelle et de Rééducation Digestive), Hôpital Avicenne, 125 rue de Stalingrad 93009 BOBIGNY Cedex, France. Tel: +33-1-48-95-74-32, Fax: +33-1-48-95-784-37, E-mail: michel.bouchoucha@aphp.fr

• Received: December 9, 2019 • Revised: May 30, 2020 • Accepted: June 4, 2020

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

18,395 Views
131 Download
8 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Abnormal psychological profiles are frequently found in patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs). The present study aimed to evaluate the psychological profiles of FGID patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and IBS phenotypes.
Methods
In 608 FGID patients, including 235 with IBS, have filled a Rome III questionnaire and the French version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2. Data analysis was performed using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.
Results
This study shows that IBS patients have abnormal psychological profiles with more significant symptom exaggeration and decreased test defensiveness than non-IBS patients. They have a significantly higher score for all clinical scales. Logistic regression analysis showed in IBS patients a decrease of body mass index (P= 0.002), and test defensiveness score K (P= 0.001) and an increase of Hypochondriasis (P< 0.001) and Masculinity-Femininity scale (P= 0.018). By comparison with non-IBS patients, IBS-constipation, IBS-diarrhea, and mixed IBS patients have increased Hypochondriasis value and Depression score, mixed IBS patients have higher Psychasthenia score and higher Hypomania score. No item was significantly different in the IBS-unspecified group.
Conclusions
This study shows that IBS patients have different psychological profiles than other FGID patients and that psychological characteristics are associated with IBS phenotypes except for patients with unsubtyped IBS.
Keywords: Irritable bowel syndrome; MMPI-2; Depression; Sex; Life stress events

INTRODUCTION

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional bowel disorder defined by the presence of chronic or recurring symptoms that include abdominal pain and discomfort (for Rome III criteria [1], but not for Rome IV criteria [2]), flatulence, bloating, and altered bowel habits [1]. IBS is a disorder of unknown etiology; there are no known biochemical, structural, or physiological abnormalities to characterize IBS. The prevalence of IBS in Western populations is estimated to be between 5% and 20% [3]. Sex ratio, frequencies of abnormal transit or defecation disorders, association to dyspepsia vary strongly according to different countries [3].

In order to test adult personality, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is the most widely used psychometric test [4]. The psychological profile of many patients with digestive disorders was previously assessed with this test [5-7]. The MMPI-2, a significant revision of the MMPI, standardized on a national sample of U.S. adults [8], introduced a wide variety of subscales to help clinicians in the interpretation of the results of the original clinical scales.

To understanding illness and human health in their entire contexts, the biopsychosocial approach [9] was proposed and used to analyze functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) such as IBS in the Rome III presentation [10]. In this hypothesis, IBS results from dysfunction of the enteric and central nervous system, which is manifested as dysmotility and/or visceral hypersensitivity and is modified by psychosocial processes. In this multicausal pathology, biological and psychological factors interact to determine the disease activity and experience of illness. IBS symptoms can be associated with psychological co-morbidities: anxiety disorders, depression, somatoform disorders, and phobic disorders [11]. This psychological profile explains an exaggerated intestinal pain and emotional distress [12].

Nevertheless, most of these studies do not use the Rome criteria [13], and MMPI was never used to characterize IBS subtypes as defined by the Rome III criteria. IBS is a clinically defined disorder without physiopathologic processes [14]. We hypothesize that different IBS subtypes are associated with different personality profiles. The present study aims to evaluate the psychological profile of IBS and IBS subtypes in a cohort of outpatients consulting for FGID in a tertiary center by using a normalized psychometric test, the MMPI-2.

METHODS

1. Subjects

Between September 2010 and December 2014, 1,293 outpatients were consecutively referred by gastroenterologists to our Center for Functional GI and Motility Disorders in the Gastroenterology Clinic of the Avicenne Hospital, a tertiary center for FGID management. A full clinical evaluation, including morphological (endoscopy or radiology) and the exclusion of metabolic, endocrinologic, and neurologic etiologies, failed to yield an organic cause for their complaint. The use of narcotics and previous surgery of the gastrointestinal tract were exclusion criteria. A single investigator (M.B.) independently confirmed the validity of the initial FGID diagnosis.

We ask the patients that have not initially filled in the MMPI questionnaire to do so at the second clinical visit. In toto, 608 patients (69% female), aged 44.5 ± 17.0 years (mean ± standard deviation [SD]), body mass index (BMI) 26.5 ± 6.0 kg/m², filled in the personality questionnaire and a standard Rome III adult diagnosis questionnaire.

2. Methods

Following the French legislation, this study was registered in the French National Agency for drug safety (decision number: 2015-A01661-48). We perform the present study according to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed written consent was obtained from each patient.

3. Study Design

The design of the present study is a retrospective observational study.

4. Clinical Questionnaire

Patients in the gastroenterologist’s office filled out a standard Rome III adult diagnosis questionnaire for FGIDs [15].

For functional bowel disorders, the diagnosis of IBS was based on the report of recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort at least 3 days per month in the last 3 months associated with 2 or more of the following: improvement with defecation, beginning associated with a change in frequency of stool, or with a change in form (appearance) of stool. Subtypes of IBS (IBS with constipation [IBS-C], IBS with diarrhea [IBS-D], mixed IBS [IBS-M], and unsubtyped IBS [IBS-U]) were defined according to the Rome III criteria [1]. In the absence of IBS, the diagnosis of other functional bowel disorders (bloating, constipation, diarrhea, and unspecified) was made. Finally, nonspecific bowel disorders were diagnosed by exclusion when bowel disorders were present but did not meet the criteria mentioned above.

Functional esophageal [16] (heartburn, chest pain, dysphagia, globus), gastroduodenal [17] (dyspepsia, postprandial distress syndrome, epigastric pain syndrome, aerophagia), anorectal [18] (fecal incontinence, anorectal pain, including levator ani syndrome proctalgia fugax, difficult defecation), disorders and abdominal pain [19] were diagnosed according to the Rome III criteria.

5. Psychological Profiles

We used the MMPI-2 to assess the psychological profile as previously described [20]. The individual raw MMPI-2 score was converted to a T-scale score (mean ± SD, 50 ± 10), which is age and sex-adjusted to the healthy controls [21]. Briefly, for each subject, the MMPI-2 is scored by 6 validity scales namely L, F, Fb, K, true response inconsistency (TRIN), and variable response inconsistency (VRIN), and 10 clinical scales namely 1-Hypochondriasis, 2-Depression, 3-Hysteria, 4-Psychopathic deviate, 5-Masculinity-Femininity, 6-Paranoia, 7-Psychasthenia, 8-Schizophrenia, 9-Hypomania, and 10-Social introversion. Sixty other items, also calculated, are described in the Supplementary Text.

6. Statistical Analysis

We used IBM SPSS software version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) to carry statistical analyses and express the results for quantitative parameters as mean ± SD. Differences among the groups were searched by one-way analysis of variance using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons with post hoc tests. Analysis of qualitative variables was used chi-square tests.

Logistic regression was used for data analysis that systematically included IBS as the dependent variable and as independent variables, BMI, and the validity and clinical MMPI-2 scales. For the analysis of the psychological characteristics of the IBS subtypes, 2 multinomial logistic regression models, adjusted for BMI, with the non-IBS and the unspecified IBS subtype used as reference groups, were created for each group. The backward selection was used for model selection during all multivariate logistic regression. Statistically significant variables (P< 0.05) remained in the adjusted model.

RESULTS

1. Patients Characteristics

The Rome questionnaire divided the 608 FGIDs patients into 235 IBS patients (39%; 77 for IBS-C, 68 for IBS-D, 54 for IBS-M, 36 for IBS-U) and 373 non-IBS patients (61%) (Table 1). IBS and non-IBS patients have similar age and sex ratio, but nonIBS patients have higher BMI than IBS patients (P< 0.001). Among the 4 IBS subtypes, IBS-C patients are more frequently of female sex than IBS-M patients (P= 0.003) and have lower BMI than IBS-D (P= 0.002) and IBS-U (P= 0.002) patients. The univariate analysis shows that IBS patients report a higher prevalence of chest pain (P< 0.001), dysphagia (P= 0.004), postprandial distress syndrome (P< 0.001), nonspecific dyspepsia (P< 0.001), aerophagia (P< 0.001), and levator ani syndrome (P= 0.004).

2. Psychological Characteristics of IBS Patients

IBS patients show higher symptom exaggeration than non-IBS patients (P< 0.001) and decreased test defensiveness score (P< 0.001) (Table 2, Supplementary Table 1). IBS patients have a significantly higher score for all clinical scales: Hypochondriasis (P< 0.001), Depression (P< 0.001), Hysteria (P< 0.001), Psychopathic deviate (P= 0.005), Masculinity-Femininity (P< 0.001), Paranoia (P< 0.001), Psychasthenia (P< 0.001), Schizophrenia (P< 0.001), Hypomania (P= 0.005) and Social introversion (P= 0.042). The results of the content, supplementary and Harris-Lingoes scales for IBS and non-IBS patients are shown in the Supplementary Text.

As shown in Fig. 1, the multivariate logistic regression found that IBS group is characterized by decreased BMI (P= 0.002; odds ratio [OR], 0.957; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.930–0.984), decreased test defensiveness score (P= 0.001; OR, 0.972; 95% CI, 0.955–0.989) and increased scales for Hypochondriasis (P< 0.001; OR, 1.049; 95% CI, 1.035–1.064) and Masculinity-Femininity (P= 0.018; OR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.003–1.037).

The frequency of abnormal clinical scales is shown in the Supplementary Tables 2 and 3 and analyzed in the Supplementary Text.

3. Demographics and Psychological Characteristics of IBS Subtypes Patients

By comparison with non-IBS patients (Table 3, Supplementary Table 4), IBS-C patients have a more frequently female sex (P< 0.01) and a lower BMI (P< 0.001) while IBS-M patients have lower BMI (P= 0.014).

Among the IBS patients, IBS subgroups show a significant difference for one validity scale, Infrequency scale with the highest value for the IBS-M group (P< 0.001 vs. non-IBS patients and P= 0.040 vs. IBS-C patients) and 4 clinical scales: Hypochondriasis, Depression, Psychasthenia, and Hypomania. The differences of the content, supplementary, and HarrisLingoes scales are shown in the Supplementary Table 3 and described in the Supplementary Text.

By comparison with non-IBS patients, IBS-C, IBS-D, and IBSM patients have increased Hypochondriasis (P< 0.001 for these 3 groups), increased Depression (P= 0.013 for IBS-C, P= 0.005 for IBS-D, and P< 0.001 for IBS-M), IBS-M patient have higher Psychasthenia (P< 0.001) and higher Hypomania (P= 0.004). No item was significantly different in the IBS-U group.

The multinomial logistic regression shows that, by comparison with the non-IBS patients (Fig. 2), IBS-C patients have lower BMI (P< 0.001; OR, 0.911; 95% CI, 0.869–0.954) and increased value for Hypochondriasis (P= 0.001; OR, 1.058; 95% CI, 1.022–1.095) and Masculinity-Femininity scale (P= 0.034; OR, 1.028; 95% CI, 1.002–1.055), the IBS-D patients have increased Hysteria score (P= 0.003; OR, 1.059; 95% CI, 1.020–1.099) and the IBS-M patients have decreased BMI (P= 0.005; OR, 0.922; 95% CI, 0.871–0.976), decreased test defensiveness score (P =0.036; OR, 0.946; 95% CI, 0.898–0.996) and increased Hypochondriasis scale (P= 0.008; OR, 1.058; 95% CI, 1.015–1.103). In contrast, no significant association was found with the IBS-U group.

By comparison to IBS-U patients, the multinomial logistic regression shows that IBS-C patients gave increased Depression score (P= 0.011; OR, 1.095; 95% CI, 1.021–1.174) and decreased BMI (P= 0.018; OR, 0.909; 95% CI, 0.839–0.983), the IBS-M patients have only decreased BMI (P= 0.030; OR, 0.909; 95% CI, 0.835–0.991) while the IBS-D patients were not significantly different.

The frequency of abnormal values is shown in Supplementary Tables 5 and 6 and analyzed in the Supplementary Text. Briefly, the multinomial logistic regression shows that, as compared to the non-IBS patients, only IBS-C and IBS-M patients are associated with an increased frequency of abnormal Hypochondriasis score: for IBS-C patients (P= 0.001; OR, 2.958; 95% CI, 1.603–5.458), and IBS-M patients (P= 0.003; OR, 3.245; 95% CI, 1.489–7.070).

DISCUSSION

This study confirms the existence of significant psychological characteristics in IBS patients. They have higher symptom exaggeration than non-IBS patients (P< 0.001), and higher score for all clinical scales. Also, psychological characteristics associated with IBS phenotypes, except IBS-U, were found. By comparison with the non-IBS patients, IBS-C patients have a higher score for Hypochondriasis and Masculinity-Femininity scale, IBS-D patients have a higher score for Hysteria, and the IBS-M patients have decreased test defensiveness score and increased Hypochondriasis scale. By comparison to IBS-U patients, IBS-C patients reported a higher score of Depression.

We used a French validated translation of the MMII 2. This 567 items-test usually takes between 1 and 2 hours to complete depending on the reading level. To avoid any bias, we excluded from the study patients unable to respond to the entire test (5% of FGIDs patients) and patients with organic diseases. Data are based on the other 608 patients.

The MMPI has been commonly used to assess medical patients (chronic pain [22], chronic pelvic pain [23], premenstrual symptoms [24]) and to explore patients with digestive disorders of known (inflammatory bowel disease), or of unknown origin: dyspepsia [25], nutcracker esophagus [26], slow transit constipation [7], or IBS [27-30].

In previous clinical studies, IBS patients were compared to healthy controls 28 or in patients with extra digestive pain [7]. The present study uses other FGIDs patients as the control group for 2 reasons. First, MMPI scales used are T scores with a known distribution in the healthy population (mean ± SD, 50 ± 10), according to the gender and age; second, other FGID patients suffer from another chronic digestive disorder. The main superiority of the MMPI on other psychological tests is the presence of validity scales to validate the questionnaires [31]. Nevertheless, the high correlation between the MMPI clinical scales limits the power of this test [32]. The improved version of the MMPI, the MMPI-3, which has a slightly different item pool, could correct this limitation.

The MMPI-2 uses 6 validity scales, but the Infrequency scale is significantly different between IBS patients and non-IBS patients. The F scale, defined by 60 items of the MMPI-2 test, is used to identify attempts at “faking good” or “faking bad.” High scores on this item characterize people that are trying to appear better or worse than they are. F score is higher in IBS patients than in non-IBS patients. Abnormal F score is found more often in IBS patients than non-IBS patients (n = 22 [17.6%] vs. n = 17 [7.7%]; P= 0.009), but there is no difference among the IBS subgroups (P= 0.670).

The other validity scales were not different between IBS and non-IBS patients (Table 2). The L scale was developed to detect patients that positively present themselves. Despite the mean L scores are higher than the normal range (45–55), this score was not different between IBS and non-IBS patients, nor between the different IBS phenotypes. L scores between 56 and 64, indicative of individuals who have a tendency to resort to denial mechanisms, or are more conforming than usual, was observed in 35% of IBS patients and 32% of non-IBS patients (P= 0.425).

The K scale measures defensiveness and assesses the willingness of the client to disclose personal information and to discuss his/her problems. The K scale is lower in IBS patients than in non-IBS patients, but it does not change with the IBS phenotypes.

In the present study, all clinical scales were different between IBS and non-IBS patients. Nevertheless, after multivariate analysis, only 2 scales remained significant: Hypochondriasis and Masculinity-Femininity.

The Supplementary Text contains the discussion of results on content, supplementary, and Harris-Lingoes scales.

Surprisingly, although all clinical scales were higher in IBS patients than in the other FGID patients, only 1 validity scale (F) and 2 clinical scales (Depression and Hypomania) varied significantly according to the IBS subtype. In a previous study using IBS subgroups clinically and not Rome III defined subgroups, it was found, contrarily to our study, only significant differences on scales K, F, and Social introversion [33]. Nevertheless, post hoc analysis revealed that for scale K, the IBS-D group scored higher than both the IBS-C and IBS-M groups. In contrast, while on scale Social introversion the pain-diarrhea group only scored higher than the pain-constipation group, but this study did not use the Rome III criteria, and did not include logistic analysis. In the present study, the different IBS phenotypes are characterized by specific psychological profiles as compared to non-IBS patients or IBS-U patients, despite the main differences are found between IBS and non-IBS FGID patients.

The IBS-C group has higher values for the scales K, Anxiety, and lower values for the scales Schizophrenia, and Masculine gender role than non-IBS patients. These patients have a defensive approach to the test and lack of confidence. As reported in previous studies, we found in the IBS-C group, a tendency to exaggerate physical symptoms [34] related to a psychological need to exaggerate and complain, and increased preoccupation about one’s health. The IBS-C group also has a higher frequency of patients with abnormal Hypochondriasis scale (see Supplementary Text).

As previously found in a limited group of Iranian IBS patients [35], IBS-D patients have a higher value for the Infrequency scale, in favor of overall psychopathology, resentment, or moodiness.

By comparison with the non-IBS group, IBS-M patients have lower values for the VRIN scale, the best measure of random, or inconsistent responding. They also have a lower Masculine gender role scale, as previously described in 70 non-subtyped male IBS patients [36], a lower Fears scale, lower Low self-esteem scale, and a larger Psychasthenia scale. In this group, a higher frequency of patients with abnormal Hypochondriasis scores was found (see Supplementary Text). Previously, it was found that IBS-M patients reported a higher number of somatic symptoms than IBS-C and mostly IBS-D patients [37]. These results could explain the results of the present study.

However, as compared to the non-IBS patients, only IBS-C and IBS-M patients are associated with an increased frequency of abnormal Hypochondriasis score. The frequency of abnormal Hypochondriasis score could be associated with the high frequency of overlapping disorders in IBS patients [38,39].

One major limitation of the present study is that the studied population is a population referred to a tertiary center focusing on FGIDs. Consequently, the expectation would be that there would be a higher level of co-morbid psychiatric distress. The present results could not be predictive of similar findings in a community population.

The cause-effect relationship between abnormal psychological traits and IBS symptoms remains controversial. Our data and other reports illustrate that abnormal psychological profiles do exist in IBS patients seeking medical help [40]. On the other hand, Drossman et al. [13] reported that psychological profiles in IBS nonpatients and subjects showing IBS symptoms but never seeking medical help were not different from the psychological profiles of healthy controls. From these observations, it was proposed that abnormal psychological behaviors are closely related to IBS patients seeking medical help. However, the control population of our study was composed of FGIDs patients with the same history of chronic functional digestive disease.

This study has some clinical implications. The present results tend to associate IBS to specific psychological profile rather than to a pattern of health care seeking pattern but also shows that abnormal scales are found in only a minority of IBS patients. In consequence, the use of antidepressant drugs must be proposed to only a limited percentage of patients as well as tricyclic or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants [41]. Besides, the difference classically performed between tricyclic antidepressants in case of diarrhea and abdominal pain, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants for IBS patients with abdominal pain and constipation must be reevaluated [42], mainly in IBS-U patients. Thus, the tailored management of IBS patients must be the rule, including medical treatment of the predominant cardinal symptom [43]: constipation, diarrhea, bloating, and abdominal pain in combination with dietary and psychological interventions.

To conclude, the present study shows that IBS patients, as compared with non-IBS patients, have significant increases in all clinical MMPI scales. Furthermore, we found significant differences in the psychological profiles according to the different IBS phenotypes.

NOTES

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Conception and the design of the study: Bouchoucha M. Analysis of data: Bouchoucha M. Interpretation of the data: Bouchoucha M, Devroede G, Benamouzig R. Writing - original draft: Bouchoucha M, Devroede G, Benamouzig R. Writing - review and editing: all authors. Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary materials are available at the Intestinal Research website (https://www.irjournal.org).

SUPPLEMENTARY TEXT

ir-2019-09171-suppl1.pdf

Supplementary Table 1. MMPI Content, Supplementary and Harris-Lingoes Scales in IBS and Non-IBS Patients

ir-2019-09171-suppl2.pdf

Supplementary Table 2. Frequency of Abnormal MMPI Scales in IBS and Non-IBS Patients

ir-2019-09171-suppl3.pdf

Supplementary Table 3. Frequency of Abnormal MMPI Content, Supplementary and Harris-Lingoes Scales in IBS and Non-IBS Patients

ir-2019-09171-suppl4.pdf

Supplementary Table 4. MMPI Content, Supplementary and Harris-Lingoes Scales of IBS Subtypes Patients

ir-2019-09171-suppl5.pdf

Supplementary Table 5. Frequency of Abnormal MMPI Validity and Clinical Scales in IBS Phenotypes

ir-2019-09171-suppl6.pdf

Supplementary Table 6. Frequency of Abnormal MMPI Content, Supplementary and Harris-Lingoes Scales According to IBS Phenotypes

ir-2019-09171-suppl7.pdf

Fig. 1.

Graphical representation of the odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval of significant demographics and validity and clinical Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 scales (P<0.01) in irritable bowel syndrome patients compared with patients with other functional gastrointestinal disorders.

Fig. 2.

Graphical representation of the odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval of clinical and psychological significant items in at least one IBS subgroup (Hs, K, Hy, Mf, BMI) in IBS phenotypes compared with patients with other functional gastrointestinal disorders. IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; IBS-C, constipation-IBS; IBS-D, diarrhea-IBS; IBS-M, mixed IBS; IBS-U, unspecified IBS; Hs, Hypochondriasis; K, test defensiveness; Hy, Hysteria; Mf, Masculinity-Femininity; BMI, body mass index.

Table 1.

Demographics and Clinical Description of the Population

Variable			All patients	IBS	Non-IBS	P-value
No. of patients			608 (100)	235 (39)	373 (61)	-
Age (yr)			44.5 ± 17.0	46.2 ± 16.9	43.5 ± 17.0	0.852
Female sex			419 (69)	166 (71)	253 (68)	0.262
BMI (kg/m²)			26.5 ± 6.0	25.4 ± 5.5	27.2 ± 6.2	< 0.001
Esophagus
	Globus		118 (19)	53 (23)	65 (17)	0.074
	Regurgitation		61 (10)	28 (12)	33 (9)	0.139
	Chest pain		161 (26)	90 (38)	71 (19)	< 0.001
	Heartburn		186 (31)	94 (40)	92 (25)	< 0.001
	Dysphagia		118 (19)	59 (25)	59 (16)	0.004
Gastroduodenal
	Epigastric pain		44 (7)	24 (10)	20 (5)	0.019
	Postprandial distress		105 (17)	64 (27)	41 (11)	< 0.001
	Nonspecific dyspepsia		153 (25)	90 (38)	63 (17)	< 0.001
	Aerophagia		163 (27)	94 (40)	69 (18)	< 0.001
Bowel						-
	All IBS subtypes		235 (39)	235 (100)	0
		IBS constipation	77 (13)	77 (33)	0
		IBS diarrhea	68 (11)	68 (29)	0
		IBS mixed	54 (9)	54 (23)	0
		IBS unspecified	36 (6)	36 (15)	0
	Constipation		89 (15)	0	89 (24)
	Diarrhea		71 (12)	0	71 (19)
	Bloating		42 (7)	0	42 (11)
	Nonspecific		60 (10)	0	60 (16)
Abdominal pain			37 (6)	0	37 (10)
Anorectal
	Soiling		60 (10)	33 (14)	27 (7)	0.005
	Fecal incontinence		48 (8)	20 (9)	28 (8)	0.382
	Levator Ani syndrome		35 (6)	25 (11)	10 (3)	< 0.001
	Proctalgia Fugax		41 (7)	25 (11)	16 (4)	0.002
	Nonspecific anorectal pain		36 (6)	23 (10)	13 (3)	0.001
	Obstructed defecation		216 (36)	127 (54)	89 (24)	< 0.001

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; BMI, body mass index.

Table 2.

MMPI Validity and Clinical Scales in IBS and Non-IBS Patients

Scale		All FGIDs patients	IBS patients	Non-IBS patients	P-value
Validity scales
	L scale	56.9 ± 10.7	56.4 ± 10.7	57.2 ± 10.7	0.382
	Infrequency scale (F)	59.2 ± 16.7	63.1 ± 18.0	56.7 ± 15.3	< 0.001
	Infrequency scale back (Fb)	58.9 ± 17.7	62.7 ± 20.3	56.6 ± 15.4	< 0.001
	K scale	48.4 ± 10.5	46.7 ± 10.3	49.4 ± 10.4	0.002
	TRIN	59.6 ± 9.0	59.6 ± 9.3	59.6 ± 8.7	0.910
	VRIN	54.8 ± 10.9	55.2 ± 10.6	54.5 ± 11.1	0.418
Clinical scales
	1 Hypochondriasis (Hs)	66.8 ± 13.6	72.0 ± 12.7	63.5 ± 13.1	< 0.001
	2 Depression (D)	61.8 ± 12.2	64.9 ± 12.4	59.8 ± 11.7	< 0.001
	3 Hysteria (Hy)	60.4 ± 13.9	65.0 ± 14.2	57.6 ± 12.9	< 0.001
	4 Psychopathic deviate (Pd)	53.7 ± 12.3	55.4 ± 12.6	52.6 ± 12.0	0.005
	5 Masculinity-Femininity (Mf)	52.9 ± 10.8	54.2 ± 10.8	52.0 ± 10.6	< 0.001
	6 Paranoia (Pa)	55.8 ± 14.7	59.2 ± 15.9	53.6 ± 13.4	< 0.001
	7 Psychasthenia (Pt)	56.7 ± 12.2	59.8 ± 12.3	54.8 ± 11.8	< 0.001
	8 Schizophrenia (Sc)	57.1 ± 13.9	60.6 ± 14.4	54.9 ± 13.1	< 0.001
	9 Hypomania (Ma)	50.8 ± 11.5	52.4 ± 12.5	49.7 ± 10.7	0.005
	10 Social introversion (Si)	55.0 ± 10.1	56.0 ± 10.1	54.3 ± 10.0	0.042

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

MMPI, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; FGIDs, functional gastrointestinal disorders; TRIN, true response inconsistency; VRIN, variable response inconsistency.

Table 3.

Demographics and MMPI Validity and Clinical Scales of IBS Subtypes Patients

Variable		IBS-C	IBS-D	IBS-M	IBS-U	P-value
Demographics
	No. of patients	77 (33)	68 (29)	54 (23)	36 (15)
	Age (yr)	43.8 ± 15.6	46.6 ± 15.6	47.6 ± 18.0	46.6 ± 15.5	0.561
	Female sex	66 (86)	46 (68)	31 (57)	23 (64)	0.003
	BMI (kg/m²)	23.8 ± 4.9	27.4 ± 7.3	24.3 ± 5.2	26.3 ± 5.4	0.001
Validity scales
	L scale	57.9 ± 10.6	57.1 ± 11.2	53.9 ± 10.2	56.0 ± 10.8	0.194
	Infrequency scale (F)	60.8 ± 16.9	62.5 ± 17.5	69.1 ± 17.2	60.2 ± 20.7	0.039
	Infrequency back (Fb)	60.9 ± 19.2	61.9 ± 21.5	68.2 ± 18.3	59.5 ± 22.2	0.135
	K scale	48.0 ± 10.1	46.8 ± 10.7	43.5 ± 9.7	48.6 ± 10.5	0.061
	TRIN	59.7 ± 9.8	59.4 ± 8.3	60.7 ± 10.2	57.8 ± 8.7	0.553
	VRIN	55.2 ± 10.6	54.8 ± 11.3	55.8 ± 9.8	55.2 ± 10.4	0.967
Clinical scales
	1 Hypochondriasis (Hs)	71.8 ± 13.4	71.1 ± 10.0	75.6 ± 13.2	68.3 ± 13.7	0.046
	2 Depression (D)	64.6 ± 11.5	65.3 ± 10.8	68.2 ± 13.3	59.7 ± 14.2	0.015
	3 Hysteria (Hy)	63.8 ± 13.9	66.3 ± 12.4	67.8 ± 16.8	61.2 ± 13.4	0.128
	4 Psychopathic deviate (Pd)	53.9 ± 12.0	54.2 ± 11.7	59.1 ± 14.7	55.6 ± 11.8	0.098
	5 Masculinity-Femininity (Mf)	54.5 ± 11.0	53.6 ± 11.4	55.4 ± 10.4	53.1 ± 10.3	0.728
	6 Paranoia (Pa)	57.3 ± 15.7	58.3 ± 15.7	64.3 ± 14.8	57.2 ± 17.3	0.058
	7 Psychasthenia (Pt)	58.5 ± 11.9	59.2 ± 11.0	63.8 ± 12.5	57.7 ± 14.0	0.046
	8 Schizophrenia (Sc)	53.1 ± 12.4	49.5 ± 11.7	55.6 ± 12.9	51.8 ± 12.5	0.051
	9 Hypomania (Ma)	59.0 ± 12.6	59.0 ± 14.2	66.2 ± 13.9	58.9 ± 17.4	0.013
	10 Social introversion (Si)	55.2 ± 9.8	57.1 ± 9.7	57.4 ± 9.9	53.8 ± 11.7	0.267

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

MMPI, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; IBS-C, IBS-constipation; IBS-D, IBS-diarrhea; IBS-M, mixed IBS; IBS-U, IBS-unspecified; BMI, body mass index; TRIN, true response inconsistency; VRIN, variable response inconsistency.

REFERENCES

1. Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD, Houghton LA, Mearin F, Spiller RC. Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1480–1491.Article PubMed
2. Mearin F, Lacy BE, Chang L, et al. Bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2016;150:1393–1407.Article
3. Quigley EM, Abdel-Hamid H, Barbara G, et al. A global perspective on irritable bowel syndrome: a consensus statement of the World Gastroenterology Organisation Summit Task Force on irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:356–366.Article PubMed
4. Hathaway SR. A coding system for MMPI profile classification. J Consult Psychol 1947;11:334–337.Article PubMed PDF
5. Thumshirn M, Camilleri M, Hanson RB, Williams DE, Schei AJ, Kammer PP. Gastric mechanosensory and lower esophageal sphincter function in rumination syndrome. Am J Physiol 1998;275–G314-G321.Article
6. Heymen S, Wexner SD, Gulledge AD. MMPI assessment of patients with functional bowel disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:593–596.Article PubMed
7. Devroede G, Girard G, Bouchoucha M, et al. Idiopathic constipation by colonic dysfunction: relationship with personality and anxiety. Dig Dis Sci 1989;34:1428–1433.Article PubMed PDF
8. Butcher JN, Dahlstrom WG, Graham JR, Tellegen A, Kaemmer B. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI2): manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.
9. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Psychodyn Psychiatry 2012;40:377–396.Article PubMed
10. Drossman DA. The functional gastrointestinal disorders and the Rome III process. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1377–1390.Article PubMed
11. Drossman DA, Chang L. Psychosocial factors in the care of patients with GI disorders. In: Yamada T. eds. Textbook of gastroenterology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 2003:636–654.
12. Whitehead WE, Crowell MD, Robinson JC, Heller BR, Schuster MM. Effects of stressful life events on bowel symptoms: subjects with irritable bowel syndrome compared with subjects without bowel dysfunction. Gut 1992;33:825–830.Article PubMed PMC
13. Drossman DA, McKee DC, Sandler RS, et al. Psychosocial factors in the irritable bowel syndrome: a multivariate study of patients and nonpatients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 1988;95:701–708.Article PubMed
14. Camilleri M, Vazquez-Roque M, Iturrino J, et al. Effect of a glucagon-like peptide 1 analog, ROSE-010, on GI motor functions in female patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2012;303–G120-G128.Article
15. Whitehead WE; Validation Working Team in Association with the Rome Questionnaire Committee. Development and validation of the Rome III diagnostic questionnaire. In: Drossman DA, Corazziari E, Talley NJ, Thompson WG, Whitehead WE, eds. Rome III: the functional gastrointestinal disorders. McLean: Degnon Associates, 2006:835-865.
16. Galmiche JP, Clouse RE, Bálint A, et al. Functional esophageal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1459–1465.Article PubMed
17. Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M, et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1466–1479.Article PubMed
18. Bharucha AE, Wald A, Enck P, Rao S. Functional anorectal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1510–1518.Article PubMed
19. Clouse RE, Mayer EA, Aziz Q, et al. Functional abdominal pain syndrome. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1492–1497.Article PubMed
20. Bouchoucha M, Girault-Lidvan N, Hejnar M, Mary F, Airinei G, Benamouzig R. Clinical and psychological characteristics of patients with globus. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2019;43:614–622.Article PubMed
21. Graham JR. MMPI-2: assessing personality and psychopathology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
22. Fishbain DA, Cole B, Cutler RB, Lewis J, Rosomoff HL, Rosomoff RS. Chronic pain and the measurement of personality: do states influence traits? Pain Med 2006;7:509–529.Article PubMed PDF
23. Duleba AJ, Jubanyik KJ, Greenfeld DA, Olive DL. Changes in personality profile associated with laparoscopic surgery for chronic pelvic pain. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1998;5:389–395.Article PubMed
24. Keye WR Jr. General evaluation of premenstrual symptoms. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1987;30:396–407.Article PubMed
25. Richter JE. Stress and psychologic and environmental factors in functional dyspepsia. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1991;182:40–46.Article PubMed
26. Richter JE, Obrecht WF, Bradley LA, Young LD, Anderson KO. Psychological comparison of patients with nutcracker esophagus and irritable bowel syndrome. Dig Dis Sci 1986;31:131–138.Article PubMed PDF
27. Blanchard EB, Keefer L, Galovski TE, Taylor AE, Turner SM. Gender differences in psychological distress among patients with irritable bowel syndrome. J Psychosom Res 2001;50:271–275.Article PubMed
28. Lee CT, Chuang TY, Lu CL, Chen CY, Chang FY, Lee SD. Abnormal vagal cholinergic function and psychological behaviors in irritable bowel syndrome patients: a hospital-based Oriental study. Dig Dis Sci 1998;43:1794–1799.Article PubMed
29. Tosic-Golubovic S, Miljkovic S, Nagorni A, Lazarevic D, Nikolic G. Irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety, depression and personality characteristics. Psychiatr Danub 2010;22:418–424.PubMed
30. Whitehead WE, Crowell MD. Psychologic considerations in the irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1991;20:249–267.Article PubMed
31. Brown TA, Sellbom M. The utility of the MMPI-2-RF validity scales in detecting underreporting. J Pers Assess 2020;102:66–74.Article PubMed
32. Leonelli BT, Chang CH, Bock RD, Schilling SG. Interpretation of a full-information item-level factor analysis of the MMPI-2: normative sampling and nonpathognomonic descriptors. J Pers Assess 2000;74:400–422.Article PubMed
33. Blanchard EB, Radnitz CL, Evans DD, Schwarz SP, Neff DF, Gerardi MA. Psychological comparisons of irritable bowel syndrome to chronic tension and migraine headache and nonpatient controls. Biofeedback Self Regul 1986;11:221–230.Article PubMed PDF
34. Bouchoucha M, Hejnar M, Devroede G, Boubaya M, Bon C, Benamouzig R. Patients with irritable bowel syndrome and constipation are more depressed than patients with functional constipation. Dig Liver Dis 2014;46:213–218.Article PubMed
35. Mousavinasab SM, Gorganinezhad-Moshiri M, Saberifirouzi M, Dehbozorgi G, Mehrabani D. Personality characteristics and irritable bowel syndrome in Shiraz, southern Iran. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2007;13:168–171.Article PubMed
36. Miller V, Whitaker K, Morris JA, Whorwell PJ. Gender and irritable bowel syndrome: the male connection. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38:558–560.Article PubMed
37. Patel P, Bercik P, Morgan DG, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome is significantly associated with somatisation in 840 patients, which may drive bloating. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;41:449–458.Article PubMed
38. Agréus L, Svärdsudd K, Nyrén O, Tibblin G. Irritable bowel syndrome and dyspepsia in the general population: overlap and lack of stability over time. Gastroenterology 1995;109:671–680.Article PubMed
39. Cremonini F, Talley NJ. Review article: the overlap between functional dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome. A tale of one or two disorders? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;20 Suppl 7:40–49.Article PubMed
40. Walker EA, Roy-Byrne PP, Katon WJ. Irritable bowel syndrome and psychiatric illness. Am J Psychiatry 1990;147:565–572.Article PubMed
41. Talley NJ. Antidepressants in IBS: are we deluding ourselves? Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:921–923.Article PubMed
42. Lacy BE, Weiser K, De Lee R. The treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2009;2:221–238.Article PubMed PMC
43. Bouchoucha M, Devroede G, Fysekidis M, Rompteaux P, Sabate JM, Benamouzig R. Data mining approach for the characterization of functional bowel disorders according to symptom intensity provides a small number of homogenous groups. Dig Dis 2020;38:310–319.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Psychopathology and the Validity of Gastrointestinal Symptom Reporting as Revealed Through Cluster Analyses of MMPI-2-RF Results
Paris A. Lang, Linda Thomas, Brett A. Lidbury
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2024; 69(11): 4063. CrossRef
The role of psychological factors in functional gastrointestinal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Liyanran Yan, Xueli Zhang, Yan Li, Chengjiang Liu, Hua Yang, Chunchun Yang
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
An Asian perspective on irritable bowel syndrome
Kee Wook Jung, Seung-Jae Myung
Intestinal Research.2023; 21(2): 189. CrossRef
Limited evidence of moderation of the association between gastrointestinal symptoms and prospective healthcare utilisation by quality of life
David T. McNaughton, Anna Andreasson, Brjánn Ljótsson, Alissa P. Beath, Julia M. Hush, Gunnar Ljunggren, Peter T. Schmidt, Nicholas J. Talley, Lars Agréus, Michael P. Jones
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics.2022; 55(3): 311. CrossRef
Compositional Changes in the Gut Microbiota of Responders and Non-responders to Probiotic Treatment Among Patients With Diarrhea-predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Seung Yong Shin, Sein Park, Jung Min Moon, Kisung Kim, Jeong Wook Kim, Jongsik Chun, Tae Hee Lee, Chang Hwan Choi
Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility.2022; 28(4): 642. CrossRef
Psychopathological and neuropsychological disorders associated with chronic primary visceral pain: Systematic review
Alejandro Arévalo-Martínez, Juan Manuel Moreno-Manso, María Elena García-Baamonde, Macarena Blázquez-Alonso, Pilar Cantillo-Cordero
Frontiers in Psychology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Impact of Psychological Comorbidity on the Prognosis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Vivek C. Goodoory, Antonina Mikocka-Walus, Yan Yiannakou, Lesley A. Houghton, Christopher J. Black, Alexander C. Ford
American Journal of Gastroenterology.2021; 116(7): 1485. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Psychological profiles of irritable bowel syndrome patients with different phenotypes

Intest Res. 2020;18(4):459-468. Published online October 26, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2019.09171

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

An Asian perspective on irritable bowel syndrome

Psychological profiles of irritable bowel syndrome patients with different phenotypes

Fig. 1. Graphical representation of the odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval of significant demographics and validity and clinical Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 scales (P<0.01) in irritable bowel syndrome patients compared with patients with other functional gastrointestinal disorders.

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of the odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval of clinical and psychological significant items in at least one IBS subgroup (Hs, K, Hy, Mf, BMI) in IBS phenotypes compared with patients with other functional gastrointestinal disorders. IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; IBS-C, constipation-IBS; IBS-D, diarrhea-IBS; IBS-M, mixed IBS; IBS-U, unspecified IBS; Hs, Hypochondriasis; K, test defensiveness; Hy, Hysteria; Mf, Masculinity-Femininity; BMI, body mass index.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Psychological profiles of irritable bowel syndrome patients with different phenotypes

Variable			All patients	IBS	Non-IBS	P-value
No. of patients			608 (100)	235 (39)	373 (61)	-
Age (yr)			44.5 ± 17.0	46.2 ± 16.9	43.5 ± 17.0	0.852
Female sex			419 (69)	166 (71)	253 (68)	0.262
BMI (kg/m²)			26.5 ± 6.0	25.4 ± 5.5	27.2 ± 6.2	< 0.001
Esophagus
	Globus		118 (19)	53 (23)	65 (17)	0.074
	Regurgitation		61 (10)	28 (12)	33 (9)	0.139
	Chest pain		161 (26)	90 (38)	71 (19)	< 0.001
	Heartburn		186 (31)	94 (40)	92 (25)	< 0.001
	Dysphagia		118 (19)	59 (25)	59 (16)	0.004
Gastroduodenal
	Epigastric pain		44 (7)	24 (10)	20 (5)	0.019
	Postprandial distress		105 (17)	64 (27)	41 (11)	< 0.001
	Nonspecific dyspepsia		153 (25)	90 (38)	63 (17)	< 0.001
	Aerophagia		163 (27)	94 (40)	69 (18)	< 0.001
Bowel						-
	All IBS subtypes		235 (39)	235 (100)	0
		IBS constipation	77 (13)	77 (33)	0
		IBS diarrhea	68 (11)	68 (29)	0
		IBS mixed	54 (9)	54 (23)	0
		IBS unspecified	36 (6)	36 (15)	0
	Constipation		89 (15)	0	89 (24)
	Diarrhea		71 (12)	0	71 (19)
	Bloating		42 (7)	0	42 (11)
	Nonspecific		60 (10)	0	60 (16)
Abdominal pain			37 (6)	0	37 (10)
Anorectal
	Soiling		60 (10)	33 (14)	27 (7)	0.005
	Fecal incontinence		48 (8)	20 (9)	28 (8)	0.382
	Levator Ani syndrome		35 (6)	25 (11)	10 (3)	< 0.001
	Proctalgia Fugax		41 (7)	25 (11)	16 (4)	0.002
	Nonspecific anorectal pain		36 (6)	23 (10)	13 (3)	0.001
	Obstructed defecation		216 (36)	127 (54)	89 (24)	< 0.001

Scale		All FGIDs patients	IBS patients	Non-IBS patients	P-value
Validity scales
	L scale	56.9 ± 10.7	56.4 ± 10.7	57.2 ± 10.7	0.382
	Infrequency scale (F)	59.2 ± 16.7	63.1 ± 18.0	56.7 ± 15.3	< 0.001
	Infrequency scale back (Fb)	58.9 ± 17.7	62.7 ± 20.3	56.6 ± 15.4	< 0.001
	K scale	48.4 ± 10.5	46.7 ± 10.3	49.4 ± 10.4	0.002
	TRIN	59.6 ± 9.0	59.6 ± 9.3	59.6 ± 8.7	0.910
	VRIN	54.8 ± 10.9	55.2 ± 10.6	54.5 ± 11.1	0.418
Clinical scales
	1 Hypochondriasis (Hs)	66.8 ± 13.6	72.0 ± 12.7	63.5 ± 13.1	< 0.001
	2 Depression (D)	61.8 ± 12.2	64.9 ± 12.4	59.8 ± 11.7	< 0.001
	3 Hysteria (Hy)	60.4 ± 13.9	65.0 ± 14.2	57.6 ± 12.9	< 0.001
	4 Psychopathic deviate (Pd)	53.7 ± 12.3	55.4 ± 12.6	52.6 ± 12.0	0.005
	5 Masculinity-Femininity (Mf)	52.9 ± 10.8	54.2 ± 10.8	52.0 ± 10.6	< 0.001
	6 Paranoia (Pa)	55.8 ± 14.7	59.2 ± 15.9	53.6 ± 13.4	< 0.001
	7 Psychasthenia (Pt)	56.7 ± 12.2	59.8 ± 12.3	54.8 ± 11.8	< 0.001
	8 Schizophrenia (Sc)	57.1 ± 13.9	60.6 ± 14.4	54.9 ± 13.1	< 0.001
	9 Hypomania (Ma)	50.8 ± 11.5	52.4 ± 12.5	49.7 ± 10.7	0.005
	10 Social introversion (Si)	55.0 ± 10.1	56.0 ± 10.1	54.3 ± 10.0	0.042

Variable		IBS-C	IBS-D	IBS-M	IBS-U	P-value
Demographics
	No. of patients	77 (33)	68 (29)	54 (23)	36 (15)
	Age (yr)	43.8 ± 15.6	46.6 ± 15.6	47.6 ± 18.0	46.6 ± 15.5	0.561
	Female sex	66 (86)	46 (68)	31 (57)	23 (64)	0.003
	BMI (kg/m²)	23.8 ± 4.9	27.4 ± 7.3	24.3 ± 5.2	26.3 ± 5.4	0.001
Validity scales
	L scale	57.9 ± 10.6	57.1 ± 11.2	53.9 ± 10.2	56.0 ± 10.8	0.194
	Infrequency scale (F)	60.8 ± 16.9	62.5 ± 17.5	69.1 ± 17.2	60.2 ± 20.7	0.039
	Infrequency back (Fb)	60.9 ± 19.2	61.9 ± 21.5	68.2 ± 18.3	59.5 ± 22.2	0.135
	K scale	48.0 ± 10.1	46.8 ± 10.7	43.5 ± 9.7	48.6 ± 10.5	0.061
	TRIN	59.7 ± 9.8	59.4 ± 8.3	60.7 ± 10.2	57.8 ± 8.7	0.553
	VRIN	55.2 ± 10.6	54.8 ± 11.3	55.8 ± 9.8	55.2 ± 10.4	0.967
Clinical scales
	1 Hypochondriasis (Hs)	71.8 ± 13.4	71.1 ± 10.0	75.6 ± 13.2	68.3 ± 13.7	0.046
	2 Depression (D)	64.6 ± 11.5	65.3 ± 10.8	68.2 ± 13.3	59.7 ± 14.2	0.015
	3 Hysteria (Hy)	63.8 ± 13.9	66.3 ± 12.4	67.8 ± 16.8	61.2 ± 13.4	0.128
	4 Psychopathic deviate (Pd)	53.9 ± 12.0	54.2 ± 11.7	59.1 ± 14.7	55.6 ± 11.8	0.098
	5 Masculinity-Femininity (Mf)	54.5 ± 11.0	53.6 ± 11.4	55.4 ± 10.4	53.1 ± 10.3	0.728
	6 Paranoia (Pa)	57.3 ± 15.7	58.3 ± 15.7	64.3 ± 14.8	57.2 ± 17.3	0.058
	7 Psychasthenia (Pt)	58.5 ± 11.9	59.2 ± 11.0	63.8 ± 12.5	57.7 ± 14.0	0.046
	8 Schizophrenia (Sc)	53.1 ± 12.4	49.5 ± 11.7	55.6 ± 12.9	51.8 ± 12.5	0.051
	9 Hypomania (Ma)	59.0 ± 12.6	59.0 ± 14.2	66.2 ± 13.9	58.9 ± 17.4	0.013
	10 Social introversion (Si)	55.2 ± 9.8	57.1 ± 9.7	57.4 ± 9.9	53.8 ± 11.7	0.267

Table 1. Demographics and Clinical Description of the Population

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

IBS, irritable bowel syndrome; BMI, body mass index.

Table 2. MMPI Validity and Clinical Scales in IBS and Non-IBS Patients

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.

Table 3. Demographics and MMPI Validity and Clinical Scales of IBS Subtypes Patients

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.