-
Gut Jun 2022A diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAP) is recommended for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), if general lifestyle... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
A diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAP) is recommended for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), if general lifestyle and dietary advice fails. However, although the impact of a low FODMAP diet on individual IBS symptoms has been examined in some randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there has been no recent systematic assessment, and individual trials have studied numerous alternative or control interventions, meaning the best comparator is unclear. We performed a network meta-analysis addressing these uncertainties.
DESIGN
We searched the medical literature through to 2 April 2021 to identify RCTs of a low FODMAP diet in IBS. Efficacy was judged using dichotomous assessment of improvement in global IBS symptoms or improvement in individual IBS symptoms, including abdominal pain, abdominal bloating or distension, and bowel habit. Data were pooled using a random effects model, with efficacy reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs, and interventions ranked according to their P-score.
RESULTS
We identified 13 eligible RCTs (944 patients). Based on failure to achieve an improvement in global IBS symptoms, a low FODMAP diet ranked first vs habitual diet (RR of symptoms not improving=0.67; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, P-score=0.99), and was superior to all other interventions. Low FODMAP diet ranked first for abdominal pain severity, abdominal bloating or distension severity and bowel habit, although for the latter it was not superior to any other intervention. A low FODMAP diet was superior to British Dietetic Association (BDA)/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) dietary advice for abdominal bloating or distension (RR=0.72; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94). BDA/NICE dietary advice was not superior to any other intervention in any analysis.
CONCLUSION
In a network analysis, low FODMAP diet ranked first for all endpoints studied. However, most trials were based in secondary or tertiary care and did not study effects of FODMAP reintroduction and personalisation on symptoms.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Disaccharides; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Monosaccharides; Network Meta-Analysis; Oligosaccharides
PubMed: 34376515
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-325214 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2022Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition. Studies regarding the treatment of IBS with probiotics have not yielded consistent results, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition. Studies regarding the treatment of IBS with probiotics have not yielded consistent results, and the best probiotics has not yet been confirmed. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative rank order of different probiotics for IBS.
METHOD
We searched for RCTs on the efficacy of probiotics for IBS until August 25, 2021. The primary outcome was the symptom relief rate, as well as global symptoms, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. The NMA was conducted using Stata 15.0. We also used meta-regression to explore whether the treatment length and dose influenced the efficacy.
RESULTS
Forty-three RCTs, with 5,531 IBS patients, were included in this analysis. Firstly, we compared the efficacy of different probiotic species. exhibited the highest probability to be the optimal probiotic specie in improving IBS symptom relief rate, as well as global symptom, abdominal pain, bloating, and straining scores. In regard to the secondary outcomes, ranked first in ameliorating the QOL of IBS patients, but without any significant differences compared with other probiotic species in standardized mean differences (SMD) estimates. Moreover, patients received had lowest incidence of adverse events. The meta-regression revealed that no significant differences were found between participants using different doses of probiotics in all outcomes, while the treatment length, as a confounder, can significantly influence the efficacy of probiotics in ameliorating abdominal pain (Coef = -2.30; p = 0.035) and straining (Coef = -3.15; p = 0.020) in IBS patients. Thus, we performed the subgroup analysis on treatment length subsequently in these two outcomes, which showed that efficacy of using 8 weeks ranked first both in improving the abdominal pain and straining scores. Additionally, still had significant efficacy compared to different types of probiotic combinations in present study.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this NMA suggested that had prominent efficacy in treating IBS patients, and incorporating into a probiotic combination, or genetically engineering it to amplify its biological function may be a future research target to treat IBS patients. With few direct comparisons available between individual therapies today, this NMA may have utility in forming treatment guideline for IBS with probiotics.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35433498
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.859967 -
Current Gastroenterology Reports Jun 2017This study aimed to systematically review small bowel obstruction (SBO), focusing on recent changes in diagnosis/therapy. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
This study aimed to systematically review small bowel obstruction (SBO), focusing on recent changes in diagnosis/therapy.
RECENT FINDINGS
SBO incidence is about 350,000/annum in the USA. Etiologies include adhesions (65%), hernias (10%), neoplasms (5%), Crohn's disease (5%), and other (15%). Bowel dilatation occurs proximal to obstruction primarily from swallowed air and secondarily from intraluminal fluid accumulation. Dilatation increases mural tension, decreases mucosal perfusion, causes bacterial proliferation, and decreases mural tensile strength that increases bowel perforation risks. Classical clinical tetrad is abdominal pain, nausea and emesis, abdominal distention, and constipation-to-obstipation. Physical exam may reveal restlessness, acute illness, and signs of dehydration and sepsis, including tachycardia, pyrexia, dry mucous membranes, hypotension/orthostasis, abdominal distention, and hypoactive bowel sounds. Severe direct tenderness, involuntary guarding, abdominal rigidity, and rebound tenderness suggest advanced SBO, as do marked leukocytosis, neutrophilia, bandemia, and lactic acidosis. Differential diagnosis includes postoperative ileus, narcotic bowel, colonic pseudo-obstruction, mesenteric ischemia, and large bowel obstruction. Medical resuscitation includes intravenous hydration, correcting electrolyte abnormalities, intravenous antibiotics, nil per os, and nasoenteral suction. Abdominal CT with oral and intravenous gastrografin contrast is highly sensitive and specific in detecting/characterizing SBO. SBO usually resolves with medical therapy but requires surgery, preferentially by laparoscopy, for unremitting total obstruction, bowel perforation, severe ischemia, or clinical deterioration with medical therapy. Overall mortality is 10% but increases to 30% with bowel necrosis/perforation. Key point in SBO is early diagnosis, emphasizing abdominal CT; aggressive medical therapy including rehydration, antibiotics, and nil per os; and surgery for failed medical therapy.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Diagnosis, Differential; Dilatation, Pathologic; Humans; Ileus; Intestinal Obstruction; Intestine, Small; Laparoscopy; Nausea; Physical Examination; Postoperative Complications; Vomiting
PubMed: 28439845
DOI: 10.1007/s11894-017-0566-9 -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Apr 2017The present study conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of current evidence to assess the efficacy of probiotics in preventing or treating small intestinal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The present study conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of current evidence to assess the efficacy of probiotics in preventing or treating small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). Relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, until May 2016, were assimilated. The prevention efficacy was assessed by the incidence of SIBO in the probiotic group, and the treatment efficacy by the SIBO decontamination rate, reduction in H2 concentration, and symptom improvement. The relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as effect measures and the random-effects model used for meta-analysis. A total of 14 full-text articles and 8 abstracts were included for the systematic review, and 18 studies were eligible for data synthesis. Patients on probiotic usage showed an insignificant trend toward low SIBO incidence [RR=0.54; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.19-1.52; P=0.24]. The pooled SIBO decontamination rate was 62.8% (51.5% to 72.8%). The probiotics group showed a significantly higher SIBO decontamination rate than the nonprobiotic group (RR=1.61; 95% CI, 1.19-2.17; P<0.05). Also, the H2 concentration was significantly reduced among probiotic users (WMD=-36.35 ppm; 95% CI, -44.23 to -28.47 ppm; P<0.05). Although probiotics produced a marked decrease in the abdominal pain scores (WMD=-1.17; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.04; P<0.05), it did not significantly reduce the daily stool frequency (WMD=-0.09; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.29). Therefore, the present findings indicated that probiotics supplementation could effectively decontaminate SIBO, decrease H2 concentration, and relieve abdominal pain, but were ineffective in preventing SIBO.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; Humans; Jejunal Diseases; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28267052
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000814 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Aug 2014Appropriate pain therapy prior to diagnosis in patients with acute abdominal pain remains controversial. Several recent studies have demonstrated that pain therapy does... (Review)
Review
Appropriate pain therapy prior to diagnosis in patients with acute abdominal pain remains controversial. Several recent studies have demonstrated that pain therapy does not negatively influence either the diagnosis or subsequent treatment of these patients; however, current practice patterns continue to favour withholding pain medication prior to diagnosis and surgical treatment decision. A systematic review of PubMed, Web-of-Science and The-Cochrane-Library from 1929 to 2011 was carried out using the key words of 'acute', 'abdomen', 'pain', 'emergency' as well as different pain drugs in use, revealed 84 papers. The results of the literature review were incorporated into six sections to describe management of acute abdominal pain: (1) Physiology of Pain; (2) Common Aetiologies of Abdominal Pain; (3) Pre-diagnostic Analgesia; (4) Pain Therapy for Acute Abdominal Pain; (5) Analgesia for Acute Abdominal Pain in Special Patient Populations; and (6) Ethical and Medico-legal Considerations in Current Analgesia Practices. A comprehensive algorithm for analgesia for acute abdominal pain in the general adult population was developed. A review of the literature of common aetiologies and management of acute abdominal pain in the general adult population and special patient populations seen in the emergency room revealed that intravenous administration of paracetamol, dipyrone or piritramide are currently the analgesics of choice in this clinical setting. Combinations of non-opioids and opioids should be administered in patients with moderate, severe or extreme pain, adjusting the treatment on the basis of repeated pain assessment, which improves overall pain management.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease; Analgesics; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Pain Management
PubMed: 24449533
DOI: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2014.00456.x -
Nutrients Sep 2023Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare and rank the outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains or combinations in adults with IBS. We searched the literature up to June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS were included. A frequentist framework was used to perform this study. In total, 9253 participants from 81 RCTs were included in the study. Four probiotic strains and five mixtures were significantly superior to placebo in improving IBS Symptom Severity Scale, among which DDS-1 ranked first (surface under the cumulative ranking, SUCRA, 92.9%). A mixture containing five probiotics (SUCRA, 100%) ranked first in improving the IBS-Quality of life. MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 96.9%) and Unique IS2 (SUCRA, 92.6%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving abdominal pain. Three probiotic strains and two mixtures were effective in alleviating abdominal bloating. Four probiotic strains and a mixture were significantly superior to placebo in reducing the bowel movement frequency in diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D). MTCC 5856 (SUCRA, 99.6%) and CNCM I-3856 (SUCRA, 89.7%) were among the most effective probiotics for improving the Bristol stool form scale of IBS-D. Only some probiotics are effective for particular outcomes in IBS patients. This study provided the first ranking of outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains and combinations in IBS. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Network Meta-Analysis; Abdominal Pain; Bacillus coagulans; Probiotics; Saccharomyces cerevisiae
PubMed: 37686889
DOI: 10.3390/nu15173856 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Jan 2021Irritable bowel disease and endometriosis are two common diseases characterized by chronic inflammation state and recurrent abdominal pain. As a consequence of sharing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Irritable bowel disease and endometriosis are two common diseases characterized by chronic inflammation state and recurrent abdominal pain. As a consequence of sharing of symptoms and chronic inflammation, endometriosis and IBS may coexist and be misdiagnosed and this leads to delays in diagnosis, mismanagement, and unnecessary testing. In recent years, some studies have found higher risk of IBS in women with endometriosis, compared to women without endometriosis. To provide a general overview, we performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis on published data on this issue.
METHODS
By a systematic literature search selection process, 11 studies were identified for the current study: 2 prospective and 2 retrospective cohort studies, 4 case-control studies, 1 cross-sectional study and 2 clinical series.
RESULTS
When we meta-analysed data about the prevalence of IBS in women with endometriosis, the overall OR (95%CI), compared to women without endometriosis was 3.26 (1.97-5.39) with no statistically significant heterogeneity. All three studies considering the incidence of IBS in women with a previous diagnosis of endometriosis showed about twofold greater risk among women with endometriosis than women without. Likewise, in the random effects model of the meta-analysis, the overall OR of history of IBS in women with endometriosis was 3.10 (95% CI 2.06-4.67), with no heterogeneity between three studies considered.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis provides epidemiological evidence of a link between endometriosis and IBS, highlighting two or more times higher risk of IBS in women with endometriosis compared to women without the condition.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adolescent; Adult; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Incidence; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Young Adult
PubMed: 32949284
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05797-8 -
Nutrients May 2020Lactose intolerance (LI) is characterized by the presence of primarily gastrointestinal clinical signs resulting from colonic fermentation of lactose, the absorption of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Lactose intolerance (LI) is characterized by the presence of primarily gastrointestinal clinical signs resulting from colonic fermentation of lactose, the absorption of which is impaired due to a deficiency in the lactase enzyme. These clinical signs can be modified by several factors, including lactose dose, residual lactase expression, concurrent ingestion of other dietary components, gut-transit time, and enteric microbiome composition. In many of individuals with lactose malabsorption, clinical signs may be absent after consumption of normal amounts of milk or, in particular, dairy products (yogurt and cheese), which contain lactose partially digested by live bacteria. The intestinal microbiota can be modulated by biotic supplementation, which may alleviate the signs and symptoms of LI. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on the influence of prebiotics and probiotics on lactase deficiency and LI. The literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE (via PUBMED) and SCOPUS databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and included randomized controlled trials. For each study selected, the risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our findings showed varying degrees of efficacy but an overall positive relationship between probiotics and LI in relation to specific strains and concentrations. Limitations regarding the wide heterogeneity between the studies included in this review should be taken into account. Only one study examined the benefits of prebiotic supplementation and LI. So further clinical trials are needed in order to gather more evidence.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Animals; Databases, Factual; Diarrhea; Diet; Flatulence; Food, Fortified; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Lactase; Lactose; Lactose Intolerance; Milk; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Vomiting
PubMed: 32443748
DOI: 10.3390/nu12051487 -
Minerva Chirurgica Jun 2020Abdominal pain (AP) is one of the most frequent clinical condition observed in elderly patients. The differential diagnosis is wide and definitive diagnosis is often...
INTRODUCTION
Abdominal pain (AP) is one of the most frequent clinical condition observed in elderly patients. The differential diagnosis is wide and definitive diagnosis is often difficult due to delayed symptoms, altered laboratory parameters, pre-existing medical disorders, abuse of drugs and in absence of an accurate medical history.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature review was carried out through PubMed database for studies published in the last ten years. The following search string was used: {("geriatric"[Title] OR "older"[Title] OR "aged"[Title] OR "elderly"[Title]) AND ((("abdomen"[Title] AND "acute"[Title]) OR "acute abdomen"[Title] OR ("acute"[Title] AND "abdomen"[Title])) OR ("abdominal"[Title] AND "pain"[title]) OR "abdominal pain"[Title])}. Full articles and abstracts were included. Case reports, commentaries, editorials and letters were excluded from the analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
As the age of people presenting AP advances, both rates of surgical procedures and mortality rate increase.
CONCLUSIONS
A systematic approach based on the organization of differential diagnoses into categories, may provide a helpful framework by the combined use of history-taking, physical examination, and results of diagnostic studies. In elderly patients admitted to the emergency department, a crucial role is played by a prompt use of radiological investigations in order to discriminate between older subjects admitted to the emergency department with abdominal pain and pathological cases requiring immediate surgical treatment.
Topics: Abdomen, Acute; Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aneurysm, Ruptured; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Appendicitis; Diagnosis, Differential; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Intestinal Obstruction; Male; Mesenteric Ischemia; Sex Factors
PubMed: 32550726
DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4733.20.08266-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Crohn's disease is a remitting and relapsing disorder that can affect the whole gastrointestinal tract. Active disease symptoms include abdominal pain, fatigue, weight... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Crohn's disease is a remitting and relapsing disorder that can affect the whole gastrointestinal tract. Active disease symptoms include abdominal pain, fatigue, weight loss, and diarrhoea. There is no known cure; however, the disease can be managed, and therefore places a huge financial burden on healthcare systems. Abdominal pain is a common and debilitating symptom of Crohn's and other inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), and is multifaceted. Abdominal pain in Crohn's disease could be a symptom of disease relapse or related to medication adverse effects, surgical complications and strictures or adhesions secondary to IBD. In the absence of these factors, around 20 to 50% of people with Crohn's in remission still experience pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing abdominal pain in people with Crohn's disease and IBD (where data on ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease could not be separated).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases, and clinical trials registries on 29 April 2021. We also searched the references of trials and systematic reviews for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised trials that compared interventions for the management of abdominal pain in the setting of Crohn's disease and IBD, with other active interventions or standard therapy, placebo, or no therapy were included. We excluded studies that did not report on any abdominal pain outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Five review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of the included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (743 randomised participants). Five studies evaluated participants with Crohn's disease; seven studies evaluated participants with IBD where the data on ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease could not be separated; and two studies provided separate results for Crohn's disease participants. Studies considered a range of disease activity states. Two studies provided intervention success definitions, whilst the remaining studies measured pain as a continuous outcome on a rating scale. All studies except one measured pain intensity, whilst three studies measured pain frequency. Withdrawals due to adverse events were directly or indirectly reported in 10 studies. No conclusions could be drawn about the efficacy of the majority of the interventions on pain intensity, pain frequency, and treatment success, except for the comparison of transcranial direct current stimulation to sham stimulation. The certainty of the evidence was very low in all but one comparison because of imprecision due to sparse data and risk of bias assessed as unclear or high risk. Two studies compared a low FODMAP diet (n=37) to a sham diet (n=45) in IBD patients. The evidence on pain intensity was of very low certainty (MD -12.00, 95% CI -114.55 to 90.55). One study reported pain intensity separately for CD participants in the low FODMAP group [n=14, mean(SD)=24 (82.3)] and the sham group [n=12, mean(SD)=32 (69.3)]. The same study also reported pain frequency for IBD participants in the low FODMAP group [n=27, mean(SD)=36 (26)] and sham group [n=25, mean(SD)=38(25)] and CD participants in the low FODMAP group [n=14, mean(SD)=36 (138.4)] and sham group [n=12, mean(SD)=48 (128.2)]. Treatment success was not reported. One study compared a low FODMAP diet (n=25) to high FODMAP/normal diet (n=25) in IBD patients. The data reported on pain intensity was unclear. Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared medicine-separated moxibustion combined with acupuncture (n=51) versus wheat bran-separated moxibustion combined with shallow acupuncture (n=51) in CD patients. The data reported on pain intensity and frequency were unclear. Treatment success was not reported. One study compared mindfulness with CBT (n=33) versus no treatment (n=33) in IBD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity and frequency (MD -37.00, 95% CI -87.29 to 13.29). Treatment success was not reported. One study compared soft non-manipulative osteopathic treatment (n=16) with no treatment besides doctor advice (n=14) in CD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.83). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared stress management (n=15) to self-directed stress management(n=15) and to standard treatment (n=15) in CD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these treatments on pain intensity (MD -30.50, 95% CI -58.45 to -2.55 and MD -34.30, 95% CI -61.99 to -6.61). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared enteric-release glyceryl trinitrate (n=34) with placebo (n=36) in CD patients. The data reported on pain intensity was unclear. Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared 100 mg olorinab three times per day (n=8) with 25 mg olorinab three times per day (n=6) in CD patients. Pain intensity was measured as a 30% reduction in weekly average abdominal pain intensity score for the 100mg group (n=5) and the 25mg group (n=6). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared relaxation training (n=28) to a waitlist (n=28) in IBD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD -0.72, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.41). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared web-based education (n=30) with a book-based education (n=30) in IBD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD -0.13, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.99). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared yoga (n=50) with no treatment (n=50) in IBD patients. The data reported on treatment success were unclear. Pain frequency and intensity were not reported. One study compared transcranial direct current stimulation (n = 10) to sham stimulation (n = 10) in IBD patients. There may be an improvement in pain intensity when transcranial direct current is compared to sham stimulation (MD -1.65, 95% CI -3.29 to -0.01, low-certainty evidence). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared a kefir diet (Lactobacillus bacteria) to no intervention in IBD patients and provided separate data for their CD participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity in IBD (MD 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.07) and CD (MD -1.10, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.53). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. Reporting of our secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most adverse events were reported in the enteric-release glyceryl trinitrate and olorinab studies. In the enteric-release glyceryl trinitrate study, the adverse events were higher in the intervention arm. In the olorinab study, more adverse events were observed in the higher dose arm of the intervention. In the studies on non-drug interventions, adverse events tended to be very low or zero. However, no clear judgements regarding adverse events can be drawn for any interventions due to the low number of events. Anxiety and depression were measured and reported at the end of intervention in only one study; therefore, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn for this outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low certainty evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation may improve pain intensity compared to sham stimulation. We could not reach any conclusions on the efficacy of any other interventions on pain intensity, pain frequency, and treatment success. The certainty of the evidence was very low due to the low numbers of studies and participants in each comparison and clinical heterogeneity amongst the studies. While no serious or total adverse events were elicited explicitly with any of the treatments studied, the reported events were very low. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons was very low, so no conclusions can be drawn.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 34844288
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013531.pub2