The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about medical knowledge.   Guidelines emphasize that irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is not a diagnosis of exclusion and encourage clinicians to make a positive diagnosis using the Rome criteria alone. Yet many clinicians are concerned about overlooking alternative diagnoses. We measured beliefs about whether IBS is a diagnosis of exclusion, and measured testing proclivity between IBS experts and community providers. We developed a survey to measure decision-making in two standardized patients with Rome III-positive IBS, including IBS with diarrhea (D-IBS) and IBS with constipation (C-IBS). The survey elicited provider knowledge and beliefs about IBS, including testing proclivity and beliefs regarding IBS as a diagnosis of exclusion. We surveyed nurse practitioners, primary care physicians, community gastroenterologists, and IBS experts. Experts were less likely than nonexperts to endorse IBS as a diagnosis of exclusion (8 vs. 72%; P<0.0001). In the D-IBS vignette, experts were more likely to make a positive diagnosis of IBS (67 vs. 38%; P<0.001), to perform fewer tests (2.0 vs. 4.1; P<0.01), and to expend less money on testing (US$297 vs. $658; P<0.01). Providers who believed IBS is a diagnosis of exclusion ordered 1.6 more tests and consumed $364 more than others (P<0.0001). Experts only rated celiac sprue screening and complete blood count as appropriate in D-IBS; nonexperts rated most tests as appropriate. Parallel results were found in the C-IBS vignette.   **Question:** Is irritable bowel syndrome a diagnosis of exclusion?   (A) Yes   (B) No   (C) Maybe
['(C) Maybe <> answer', 'The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about medical knowledge. <> instruction', '(A) Yes \n (B) No \n (C) Maybe <> possible answers', 'Guidelines emphasize that irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is not a diagnosis of exclusion and encourage clinicians to make a positive diagnosis using the Rome criteria alone. Yet many clinicians are concerned about overlooking alternative diagnoses. We measured beliefs about whether IBS is a diagnosis of exclusion, and measured testing proclivity between IBS experts and community providers. We developed a survey to measure decision-making in two standardized patients with Rome III-positive IBS, including IBS with diarrhea (D-IBS) and IBS with constipation (C-IBS). The survey elicited provider knowledge and beliefs about IBS, including testing proclivity and beliefs regarding IBS as a diagnosis of exclusion. We surveyed nurse practitioners, primary care physicians, community gastroenterologists, and IBS experts. Experts were less likely than nonexperts to endorse IBS as a diagnosis of exclusion (8 vs. 72%; P<0.0001). In the D-IBS vignette, experts were more likely to make a positive diagnosis of IBS (67 vs. 38%; P<0.001), to perform fewer tests (2.0 vs. 4.1; P<0.01), and to expend less money on testing (US$297 vs. $658; P<0.01). Providers who believed IBS is a diagnosis of exclusion ordered 1.6 more tests and consumed $364 more than others (P<0.0001). Experts only rated celiac sprue screening and complete blood count as appropriate in D-IBS; nonexperts rated most tests as appropriate. Parallel results were found in the C-IBS vignette. \n   Is irritable bowel syndrome a diagnosis of exclusion? <> context@']