IBS subtype analysis
BOS, IBS-C, IBS-D, Worse/much, IBS, IBS-U, IBS-M
Twenty-four (47.06%) patients were classified as IBS-U type, 20 (39.22%) were IBS-C, and 7 (13.73%) were IBS-D. No IBS-M patients were identified. No differences (p > 0.05) in SxD prevalence were found among IBS-U (29.17%), IBS-C (45%), and IBS-D (42.86%). IBS-C patients obtained lower scores on the physical function, general health, vitality, social functioning, and mental health domains than IBS-U patients (Additional File PCS was higher in IBS-U [61.7 ± 8.47 (58.32–65.09)] than in IBS-C [50.62 ± 11.94 (45.38–55.85), p = 0.0008] but not in IBS-D [53.38 ± 9.94 (46.02–60.74), p = 0.5]. No differences in MCS (p > 0.05) were noted among IBS-U [44.82 ± 6.77 (42.12–47.53)], IBS-D [45.29 ± 5.26 (41.4–49.19)], and IBS-C [42.84 ± 7.35 (39.62–46.06)]. Worse/much worse change in health perception within one year did not differ (p > 0.05) among the IBS-U (12.5%), IBS-D (28.57%) or IBS-C (35%) groups.Additional File Concordance, which is defined as the percentage of times in which the BSS and BOS were the same between subjects in each group, was good/excellent (higher than 80%, p > 0.3, chi square test) in the total population (84%), patients with IBS (84%) and controls (83%). Similarly, the total population (r = 0.83), IBS patients (r = 0.9) and controls (r = 0.72) showed a direct correlation (p < 0.01) between BSS and BOS.