SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2019
Methods for diagnosing bile acid malabsorption: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth Following Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
- Review
- Management of Recurrent Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy: A Case Report.Journal of reproduction & infertility · 2025Article
- [Bile Acid Diarrhea].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2024Review
- Article
- Pathophysiology and Clinical Management of Bile Acid Diarrhea.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Impact of elobixibat on serum and fecal bile acid levels and constipation symptoms in patients with chronic constipation.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Article
- Downregulation of Serum and Distal Ileum Fibroblast Growth Factor19 in Bile Acid Diarrhoea Patients.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBile acid malabsorption (BAM) and bile acid-related diarrhea represent an under-recognized cause of chronic diarrhea mainly because of limited guidance on appropriate diagnostic and laboratory tests. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature in order to identify and compare the diagnostic accuracy of different diagnostic methods for patients with BAM, despite a proven gold standard test is still lacking.
methodsA PubMed literature review and a manual search were carried out. Relevant full papers, evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of different methods for BAM, were assessed. Available data were analyzed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of each published test.
resultsOverall, more than one test was considered in published papers on BAM. The search strategy retrieved 574 articles; of these, only 16 were full papers (with a total of 2.332 patients) included in the final review. Specifically, n = 8 studies used
conclusionsOur systematic review indicates that
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.