Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41394885›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025

Comparative efficacy of diverse therapeutic regimens for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: a systematic network meta-analysis.

Qinlin Zhang, Hongliang Li, Changxi Chen, Mengting Li, Jian Song, Shiyu Pan, Baile Shen, Yijia Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Critical Review: The Past, Present, and Future of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO).JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    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

8 authors.

Qinlin ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province 315040, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8793-2422
Hongliang LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China.
Changxi ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China.
Mengting LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China.
Jian SongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China.
Shiyu PanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China.
Baile ShenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China.
Yijia HuangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated People's Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The management of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) involves a range of therapeutic options such as antibiotics, probiotics, and prokinetic agents, yet their comparative clinical efficacy remains poorly characterized. Objective: To address this critical evidence gap, we systematically evaluated all empirically used treatment regimens through a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with the goal of providing clearer guidance for therapeutic selection. Design: We conducted a systematic review and NMA following established methodological standards for evidence synthesis. Data sources and methods: Our comprehensive literature search covered PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from their inception through December 31, 2024. We included RCTs examining SIBO treatments in adult populations. The extracted data from qualifying RCTs were subjected to Bayesian NMA to (1) conduct pairwise comparisons of empirical SIBO treatment regimens and (2) determine their hierarchical efficacy ranking. The ranking probability for each regimen was evaluated by means of the surfaces under cumulative ranking values. Results: Our NMA incorporated 30 eligible RCTs, involving a total of 1552 participants and evaluating 12 distinct interventions. Based on comparative efficacy rankings, berberine was associated with the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value, positioning it as a potentially favorable option for SIBO eradication. In the subgroup of patients with concurrent functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), the combination of rifaximin and a gastrointestinal motility drug also showed a high SUCRA value (89%), suggesting it may represent a particularly effective regimen in this clinical context. Furthermore, among SIBO patients with chronic liver disease, the gastrointestinal motility drug alone exhibited the most favorable ranking trend (SUCRA: 79.6%). While three of the included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias (RoB), meta-regression analysis indicated that the RoB did not significantly influence the model outcomes. The confidence in network estimates was generally rated as high across the treatment comparisons. Conclusion: This NMA suggests that the management of SIBO may be optimized by considering specific patient comorbidities. Three principal clinical scenarios were identified: First, for patients with uncomplicated SIBO, berberine monotherapy displayed the highest ranking in terms of comparative efficacy. Second, in those with concomitant FGIDs, a combination of rifaximin and a prokinetic agent appeared to be the most promising approach. Finally, among individuals with SIBO and chronic liver disease, prokinetic therapy alone was ranked as the most favorable intervention. These findings highlight the potential for tailored treatment strategies; however, given the methodological heterogeneity and limited sample sizes in some subgroups, the results should be interpreted as generating hypotheses for future validation in well-controlled, direct-comparison studies. Trial registration: This NMA was registered with PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD420251075028).

Indexed as

network meta-analysissmall intestinal bacterial overgrowthtreatment

Identifiers

PMID41394885
PMCPMC12699006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.