ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
Economic Evaluations of Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Treating Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction: A Scoping Review.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDisorders of gut-brain interaction are highly prevalent and burdensome conditions for both patients and healthcare systems. Given the limited effectiveness of pharmacotherapy in treating disorders of gut-brain interaction, non-pharmacological interventions are increasingly used; however, the value for money of non-pharmacological treatments is uncertain. This is the first review to assess the economic evaluation evidence of non-pharmacological interventions for disorders of gut-brain interaction.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Reporting adhered to ISPOR's good practices for systematic reviews with cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Comprehensive searches were performed on 24 October, 2023, and an updated search was run on 18 May, 2024 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and the International HTA database, with two reviewers screening studies in parallel. The novel Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation (CHEQUE) framework was used to assess methodological and reporting quality. Reporting quality was further assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022.
resultsFifteen studies were included. Most studies examined treatments for irritable bowel syndrome. Cognitive behavioural therapy, dietary interventions and sacral neuromodulation were cost effective. Acupuncture and physiotherapy were not. CHEQUE assessment showed 12 studies met at least 70% of the methodological criteria, and 14 studies achieved 70% or more for reporting quality.
conclusionsThis review highlights gaps in the current evidence base, particularly in the robustness and generalisability of results due to methodological inconsistencies. Future research should incorporate longer follow-ups, comprehensive cost assessments, subgroup analyses, equity considerations and clearer justifications for modelling assumptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39570568What 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.