Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32738908›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2020

Assessment of causal link between psychological factors and symptom exacerbation in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review utilising Bradford Hill criteria and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Mariyana Schoultz, Michelle Beattie, Trish Gorely, Janni Leung

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Psychological interventions for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. PMHeliyon · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Mariyana SchoultzSchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Manchester, UK. m.schoultz@salford.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3780-8110
Michelle BeattieCentre for Health Sciences, University of Highlands and Islands, Inverness, Scotland, UK.
Trish GorelyCentre for Health Sciences, University of Highlands and Islands, Inverness, Scotland, UK.
Janni LeungFaculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
University of the Highlands and Islands · GBThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Salford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychological stress is a prevalent factor in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with detrimental effects on patients' quality of life and possibly disease course. Although the aetiology of symptom exacerbation in IBD has been explored, determining any causation between psychological stress and symptom worsening remains challenging and requires a methodologically rigorous approach.

aimThe aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine a causal relationship between psychological stress and symptom exacerbation in IBD, subsequently utilising Bradford Hill's criteria (approach never used in this topic area before) to evaluate the likelihood of causal associations.

methodsMedline, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycInfo were searched for relevant studies up to July 20, 2019. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by two independent reviewers. Results of all retained papers were presented as a narrative synthesis. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted on studies meeting the criteria for meta-analysis. Bradford Hill criteria were applied to assess the causality of the relationship between all psychological factors and symptom exacerbation.

resultsThe searches yielded 2472 potential articles. Nineteen clinical prospective cohort studies were eligible for the narrative review with five suitable for the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed depression, anxiety and perceived stress did not have a statistically significant association with an increased risk of symptom exacerbation. Four of the Bradford Hill criteria were met which indicates that there is weak to moderate evidence of a causal association between all the psychological factors and disease activity. Inconsistent results and a dearth of studies using the same tools for measuring psychological factors suggest the need for more research to be done to facilitate more conclusive findings.

conclusionsThis original review utilising Bradford Hill criteria in addition to meta-analysis to evaluate the causality of relationship between psychological factors and symptom exacerbation in IBD provides evidence that psychological factors have a weak to moderate causal involvement in IBD symptom exacerbation. However, when combining this finding with the outcomes of the meta-analysis, we can say that the results were inconclusive. Interventions to reduce the associated psychological impact should be part of the treatment plan for patients with IBD. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012003143.

Indexed as

Inflammatory Bowel DiseasesQuality of LifeCausalityHumansProspective StudiesSymptom Flare UpCrohn’s diseaseInflammatory bowel diseaseMeta-analysisPsychological factorsSymptom exacerbationSystematic reviewUlcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID32738908
PMCPMC7395978
OpenAlexW2981138378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.