ArticleMedicine2019
Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for irritable bowel syndrome: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can Symptoms and Medical History Predict Outcomes for Hydrogen and Methane Breath Testing?The American journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Review
- Performance and Interpretation of Hydrogen and Methane Breath Testing Impact of North American Consensus Guidelines.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Adherence and Effects Derived from FODMAP Diet on Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Real Life Evaluation of a Large Follow-Up Observation.Nutrients · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global prevalence of Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is estimated to be as high as 15% and a number of different non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments have been used to manage IBS in clinical practice, which poses great challenges for clinicians to make appropriate decisions. Hence, a systematic review and network meta-analysis on all available pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for IBS is needed to provide reliable evidence.
methodsWe will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedical medicine (CBM) from inception to 31, May 2019. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for IBS will be included. Study quality will be assessed on the basis of the methodology and categories described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Primary outcomes are global or clinical improvement and quality of life. A Bayesian network meta-analysis would be performed, and relative ranking of agents would be assessed. A node splitting method will be used to examine the inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons when a loop connecting 3 arms exists.
resultsResearchers will rank the effectiveness and safety of the potentials interventions for IBS according the characteristics of patients by conducting an advanced network meta-analysis based on Bayesian statistical model, and interpret the results by using GRADE approach.
conclusionThe conclusion of our study will provide updated evidence to rank the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for IBS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable since this study is a network meta-analysis based on published trials. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018083844.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.