FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2996408040> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2996408040 endingPage "131" @default.
• W2996408040 startingPage "117" @default.
• W2996408040 abstract "Background Although novel therapies for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) continue to be developed, many doctors rely on more established, traditional therapies as first-line or second-line treatment options. These therapies include soluble fibre (eg, ispaghula husk), antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, and gut–brain neuromodulators (including tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or α-2-δ calcium channel subunit ligands). However, the relative efficacy of traditional treatments in patients with IBS is unclear because there have been few head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy of traditional therapies in patients with IBS to help inform clinical decisions. Methods For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to week 2 of August 2019; ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials or supplementary data published up to Aug 18, 2019; and gastroenterology conference proceedings for study abstracts published between 2001 and Aug 18, 2019. We included RCTs that compared any of these treatments with each other (head-to-head trials) or with placebo, in which the efficacy of soluble fibre, antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, or gut–brain neuromodulators was assessed in adults (aged at least 18 years) with IBS of any subtype after 4–12 weeks of treatment. Only RCTs reporting a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, in terms of either improvement in global IBS symptoms or improvement in abdominal pain, were included. The efficacy and safety of all treatments were reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested, and treatments were ranked according to their P-score. Findings Our search identified 5863 references, of which 81 were screened for eligibility. 51 RCTs with data from 4644 patients were eligible for inclusion in our analysis, but only 13 of these trials were at low risk of bias. Based on an endpoint of failure to achieve improvement in global IBS symptoms at 4–12 weeks, peppermint oil capsules were ranked first for efficacy (RR 0·63, 95% CI 0·48–0·83, P-score 0·84) and tricyclic antidepressants were ranked second (0·66, 0·53–0·83, P-score 0·77). For failure to achieve an improvement in global IBS symptoms at 4–12 weeks, there were no significant differences between active treatments after direct or indirect comparisons. For failure to achieve improvement in abdominal pain at 4–12 weeks, tricyclic antidepressants were ranked first for efficacy (0·53, 0·34–0·83, P-score 0·87); however, this result was based on data from only four RCTs involving 92 patients. For failure to achieve an improvement in abdominal pain, none of the active treatments showed superior efficacy upon indirect comparison. Tricyclic antidepressants were more likely than placebo to lead to adverse events (1·59, 1·26–2·06, P-score 0·16). Interpretation In this network meta-analysis of RCTs of soluble fibre, antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, and gut–brain neuromodulators for IBS, few of which were judged as being at a low risk of bias, peppermint oil was ranked first for efficacy when global symptoms were used as the outcome measure, and tricyclic antidepressants were ranked first for efficacy when abdominal pain was used as the outcome measure. However, because of the lack of methodological rigour of some RCTs analysed in our study, there is likely to be considerable uncertainty around these findings. In addition, because treatment duration in most included trials was 4–12 weeks, the long-term relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown. Funding None. Although novel therapies for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) continue to be developed, many doctors rely on more established, traditional therapies as first-line or second-line treatment options. These therapies include soluble fibre (eg, ispaghula husk), antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, and gut–brain neuromodulators (including tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or α-2-δ calcium channel subunit ligands). However, the relative efficacy of traditional treatments in patients with IBS is unclear because there have been few head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare and rank the efficacy of traditional therapies in patients with IBS to help inform clinical decisions. For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Embase Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to week 2 of August 2019; ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials or supplementary data published up to Aug 18, 2019; and gastroenterology conference proceedings for study abstracts published between 2001 and Aug 18, 2019. We included RCTs that compared any of these treatments with each other (head-to-head trials) or with placebo, in which the efficacy of soluble fibre, antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, or gut–brain neuromodulators was assessed in adults (aged at least 18 years) with IBS of any subtype after 4–12 weeks of treatment. Only RCTs reporting a dichotomous assessment of overall response to therapy, in terms of either improvement in global IBS symptoms or improvement in abdominal pain, were included. The efficacy and safety of all treatments were reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs to summarise the effect of each comparison tested, and treatments were ranked according to their P-score. Our search identified 5863 references, of which 81 were screened for eligibility. 51 RCTs with data from 4644 patients were eligible for inclusion in our analysis, but only 13 of these trials were at low risk of bias. Based on an endpoint of failure to achieve improvement in global IBS symptoms at 4–12 weeks, peppermint oil capsules were ranked first for efficacy (RR 0·63, 95% CI 0·48–0·83, P-score 0·84) and tricyclic antidepressants were ranked second (0·66, 0·53–0·83, P-score 0·77). For failure to achieve an improvement in global IBS symptoms at 4–12 weeks, there were no significant differences between active treatments after direct or indirect comparisons. For failure to achieve improvement in abdominal pain at 4–12 weeks, tricyclic antidepressants were ranked first for efficacy (0·53, 0·34–0·83, P-score 0·87); however, this result was based on data from only four RCTs involving 92 patients. For failure to achieve an improvement in abdominal pain, none of the active treatments showed superior efficacy upon indirect comparison. Tricyclic antidepressants were more likely than placebo to lead to adverse events (1·59, 1·26–2·06, P-score 0·16). In this network meta-analysis of RCTs of soluble fibre, antispasmodic drugs, peppermint oil, and gut–brain neuromodulators for IBS, few of which were judged as being at a low risk of bias, peppermint oil was ranked first for efficacy when global symptoms were used as the outcome measure, and tricyclic antidepressants were ranked first for efficacy when abdominal pain was used as the outcome measure. However, because of the lack of methodological rigour of some RCTs analysed in our study, there is likely to be considerable uncertainty around these findings. In addition, because treatment duration in most included trials was 4–12 weeks, the long-term relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown." @default.
• W2996408040 created "2019-12-26" @default.
• W2996408040 creator A5001729912 @default.
• W2996408040 creator A5006062033 @default.
• W2996408040 creator A5038102817 @default.
• W2996408040 creator A5044392782 @default.
• W2996408040 creator A5056355381 @default.
• W2996408040 creator A5068797509 @default.
• W2996408040 creator A5076631930 @default.
• W2996408040 date "2020-02-01" @default.
• W2996408040 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2996408040 title "Efficacy of soluble fibre, antispasmodic drugs, and gut–brain neuromodulators in irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis" @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1617328014 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1901791757 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1907042839 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1934158149 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1955481851 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1964254708 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1973096358 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1983907823 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1989500692 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1991905967 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1995777506 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W1997297098 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2005575554 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2006544724 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2007301983 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2010699829 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2011627484 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2013274785 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2026402382 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2029108089 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2029581673 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2030484105 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2033600566 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2033890227 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2045576081 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2046456501 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2050360760 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2052159025 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2053180699 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2053290144 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2053810512 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2054014648 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2058710569 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2061724976 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2063163890 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2065994042 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2075334766 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2085803274 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2086376979 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2091808438 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2097465425 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2105669432 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2111999709 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2112542905 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2117139515 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2127410136 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2129821518 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2138706910 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2159718544 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2159988048 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2161151481 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2167366729 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2171220209 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2171309016 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2271701742 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2344547018 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2513213841 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2548080375 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2607259994 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2810026625 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2888385245 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2893359523 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2914307537 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2939585492 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W2956603925 @default.
• W2996408040 cites W4211073917 @default.
• W2996408040 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30324-3" @default.
• W2996408040 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31859183" @default.
• W2996408040 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W2996408040 type Work @default.
• W2996408040 sameAs 2996408040 @default.
• W2996408040 citedByCount "93" @default.
• W2996408040 countsByYear W29964080402020 @default.
• W2996408040 countsByYear W29964080402021 @default.
• W2996408040 countsByYear W29964080402022 @default.
• W2996408040 countsByYear W29964080402023 @default.
• W2996408040 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2996408040 hasAuthorship W2996408040A5001729912 @default.
• W2996408040 hasAuthorship W2996408040A5006062033 @default.
• W2996408040 hasAuthorship W2996408040A5038102817 @default.
• W2996408040 hasAuthorship W2996408040A5044392782 @default.
• W2996408040 hasAuthorship W2996408040A5056355381 @default.
• W2996408040 hasAuthorship W2996408040A5068797509 @default.
• W2996408040 hasAuthorship W2996408040A5076631930 @default.
• W2996408040 hasBestOaLocation W29964080402 @default.

• next