Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38272759›Full record

SynthesisEBioMedicine2024

Do interventions for mood improve inflammatory biomarkers in inflammatory bowel disease?: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Natasha Seaton, Joanna Hudson, Sophie Harding, Sam Norton, Valeria Mondelli, Annie S K Jones, Rona Moss-Morris

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in EBioMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
20.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natasha SeatonInstitute of Psychology Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK. Electronic address: natasha.seaton@kcl.ac.uk.
Joanna HudsonInstitute of Psychology Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Sophie HardingInstitute of Psychology Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Sam NortonInstitute of Psychology Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Valeria MondelliInstitute of Psychology Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Annie S K JonesInstitute of Psychology Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Rona Moss-MorrisInstitute of Psychology Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPsychoneuroimmunological mechanisms and the gut-brain axis appear relevant to disease activity and progression in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). A recent review showed no effect of psychological therapies on self-reported disease activity in IBD. This meta-analysis aims to establish whether interventions targeting mood outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety and stress) impact inflammation levels in IBD and possible moderators of these effects.

methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We searched five electronic databases and included randomised controlled trials where interventions targeted mood and assessed inflammatory outcomes pre- and post-intervention in adults with IBD. Independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Data were pooled to estimate standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs). A random-effects robust variance estimation accounted for studies measuring multiple biomarkers. Intervention type, mood as a primary or secondary outcome, effect on mood outcomes and IBD subtype were investigated as treatment effect moderators. Where there were sufficient biomarkers, individual meta-analyses were run (Pre-registration PROSPERO: CRD42023389401).

findings28 RCTs involving 1789 participants met inclusion criteria. Interventions demonstrated small, statistically significant effects on biomarkers (-0.35, 95% CI: -0.48, -0.22, p < 0.001) and medium effects on mood outcomes (-0.50, 95% CI: -0.73, -0.27, p < 0.001), without evidence of substantive heterogeneity or publication bias. Individual analyses showed small effects for improved faecal calprotectin (-0.19, 95% CI: -0.34, -0.03, p = 0.018) and C-Reactive Protein (-0.29, 95% CI: -0.47, -0.10, p = 0.002). Effect sizes were larger for psychological therapy interventions (compared with exercise or antidepressants) and when there was an effect (SMD ≥0.2) on mood.

interpretationTreatments which address mood outcomes have beneficial effects on generic inflammation as well as disease-specific biomarkers (faecal calprotectin and C-Reactive Protein). Psychological interventions and interventions with larger treatment effects on mood accentuated the effect on biomarkers. More research is required to understand the biological or behavioural mechanisms underlying this effect.

fundingThe Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre.

Indexed as

C-Reactive ProteinInflammatory Bowel DiseasesAdultBiomarkersHumansInflammationLeukocyte L1 Antigen ComplexBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinLeukocyte L1 Antigen ComplexAnxietyDepressionInflammatory Bowel DiseaseMeta-analysisPsychological interventionPsychoneuroimmunology

Identifiers

PMID38272759
PMCPMC10878994
OpenAlexW4391166129

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.