ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Outcome measures for irritable bowel syndrome: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient-Reported Epigastric Symptom Dynamics During Trimebutine Maleate Treatment: A Post-Marketing Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common gut-brain interaction disorders. Most current IBS randomized controlled trials (RCTs) do not justify their choice of outcomes, and inappropriate outcome selection may obscure efficacy evaluation.
objectiveIn this study, we systematically organize outcome-related information from IBS RCTs, encompassing two key components: categorizing outcomes into distinct domains, and summarizing the corresponding outcome measurement instruments for each domain. We also classify these outcome measures based on drug therapeutic mechanisms, IBS subtypes, and the research aims of RCTs, providing a reference basis for the comprehensive and accurate selection of outcome measures for IBS RCTs. SEARCH STRATEGY: We developed a systematic search (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library; up to May 2023) with an information specialist, combining "IBS" and "RCT" concepts. Outcomes and their instruments were categorized into domains, stratified by IBS subtype and intervention.
resultFrom 408 included studies, outcomes fell into four main domains: global improvement (76.96%), individual symptoms (64.46%), quality of life (43.63%), and psychological status (24.26%). Key instruments included IBS-SSS (global improvement), BSFS (stool consistency), IBS-QOL (quality of life), and HADS (psychological status). IBS-C emphasized defecatory straining, while IBS-D focused on defecatory urgency. Most psychological therapy uses VSI for psychological assessment. Gut-directed drug trials are rarely used for evaluation in the psychological domain. Only 3 of 146 long-term efficacy studies included recurrence rates.
conclusionSelecting appropriate outcome measures based on drug mechanisms, different IBS subtypes, and the specific research objectives of RCTs can allow for accurate efficacy evaluation. However, the placebo effect and long-term effect evaluation require more attention.
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.