Dataset Information

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Irritable Bowel Syndrome After Infectious Enteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND & AIMS:Foodborne illness affects 15% of the US population each year, and is a risk factor for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We evaluated risk of, risk factors for, and outcomes of IBS after infectious enteritis. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of electronic databases from 1994 through August 31, 2015 to identify cohort studies of the prevalence of IBS 3 months or more after infectious enteritis. We used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the summary point prevalence of IBS after infectious enteritis, as well as relative risk (compared with individuals without infectious enteritis) and host- and enteritis-related risk factors. RESULTS:We identified 45 studies, comprising 21,421 individuals with enteritis, followed for 3 months to 10 years for development of IBS. The pooled prevalence of IBS at 12 months after infectious enteritis was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2-14.1) and at more than 12 months after infectious enteritis was 14.5% (95% CI, 7.7-25.5). Risk of IBS was 4.2-fold higher in patients who had infectious enteritis in the past 12 months than in those who had not (95% CI, 3.1-5.7); risk of IBS was 2.3-fold higher in individuals who had infectious enteritis more than 12 months ago than in individuals who had not (95% CI, 1.8-3.0). Of patients with enteritis caused by protozoa or parasites, 41.9% developed IBS, and of patients with enteritis caused by bacterial infection, 13.8% developed IBS. Risk of IBS was significantly increased in women (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.6-3.1) and individuals with antibiotic exposure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4), anxiety (OR, 2; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9), depression (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9), somatization (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 2.7-6.0), neuroticism (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.6-6.5), and clinical indicators of enteritis severity. There was a considerable level of heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSIONS:In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found >10% of patients with infectious enteritis develop IBS later; risk of IBS was 4-fold higher than in individuals who did not have infectious enteritis, although there was heterogeneity among studies analyzed. Women-particularly those with severe enteritis-are at increased risk for developing IBS, as are individuals with psychological distress and users of antibiotics during the enteritis.

SUBMITTER: Klem F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5367939 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Irritable Bowel Syndrome After Infectious Enteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Klem Fabiane F Wadhwa Akhilesh A Prokop Larry J LJ Sundt Wendy J WJ Farrugia Gianrico G Camilleri Michael M Singh Siddharth S Grover Madhusudan M

Gastroenterology 20170106 5

<h4>Background & aims</h4>Foodborne illness affects 15% of the US population each year, and is a risk factor for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We evaluated risk of, risk factors for, and outcomes of IBS after infectious enteritis.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review of electronic databases from 1994 through August 31, 2015 to identify cohort studies of the prevalence of IBS 3 months or more after infectious enteritis. We used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the summary po ...[more]

PMID: 28069350

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEvidence-based treatment guidelines have been unable to provide evidence-based guidance on the effects of acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) because the only previous systematic review included only small, heterogeneous, and methodologically unsound trials. We conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the effects of acupuncture for treating IBS.MethodsMEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Chinese databases Sino-Med, CNKI, and VIP were searched through November 2011. Eligible RCTs compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other active treatments, or no (specific) treatment, and evaluated acupuncture as an adjuvant to another treatment. Our outcomes were overall IBS symptom severity and health-related quality of life. Dichotomous data were pooled to provide a relative risk (RR) of substantial improvement after treatment, and continuous data were pooled to provide a standardized mean difference (SMD) in post-treatment scores between groups.ResultsA total of 17 RCTs (N=1,806) were included. We found no evidence of an improvement with acupuncture relative to sham acupuncture on symptom severity (SMD=-0.11, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -0.35 to 0.13; 4 RCTs) or quality of life (SMD=-0.03, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.22; 3 RCTs). Because of the homogeneity of the results of the sham-controlled trials, results were unaffected by restriction to the four sham-controlled RCTs that used adequate randomization, blinding, and had few withdrawals/dropouts. Among RCTs that did not use a placebo control, acupuncture was more effective than pharmacological therapy (RR of symptom improvement=1.28, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.45; 5 RCTs) and no (specific) treatment (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.79; 2 RCTs). There was no difference between acupuncture and Bifidobacterium (RR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.27; 2 RCTs) or between acupuncture and psychotherapy (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.26; 1 RCT). Acupuncture as an adjuvant to another Chinese medicine treatment was statistically significantly better than the other treatment alone, in trials with a high risk of bias (RR=1.17, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.33; 4 RCTs).ConclusionsSham-controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control on IBS symptom severity or IBS-related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from pharmacological therapies. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients' preferences for acupuncture or patients' greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drugs.

Project description:BackgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder. Many patients suffer from IBS that can be difficult to treat, thus complementary therapies which may be effective and have a lower likelihood of adverse effects are being sought.This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at critically evaluating the current evidence on moxibustion for improving global symptoms of IBS.MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED, CINAHL, and CNKI databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of moxibustion comparing with sham moxibustion, pharmacological medications, and other active treatments in patients with IBS. Trials should report global symptom improvement as an outcome measure. Risk of bias for each RCT was assessed according to criteria by the Cochrane Collaboration, and the dichotomous data were pooled according to the control intervention to obtain a risk ratio (RR) of global symptom improvement after moxibustion, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 20 RCTs were eligible for inclusion (n = 1625). The risk of bias was generally high. Compared with pharmacological medications, moxibustion significantly alleviated overall IBS symptoms but there was a moderate inconsistency among studies (7 RCTs, RR 1.33, 95% CI [1.15, 1.55], I² = 46%). Moxibustion combined with acupuncture was more effective than pharmacological therapy but a moderate inconsistency among studies was found (4 RCTs, RR 1.24, 95% CI [1.09, 1.41], I² = 36%). When moxibustion was added to pharmacological medications or herbal medicine, no additive benefit of moxibustion was shown compared with pharmacological medications or herbal medicine alone. One small sham-controlled trial found no difference between moxibustion and sham control in symptom severity (mean difference 0.35, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.47]). Moxibustion appears to be associated with few adverse events but the evidence is limited due to poor reporting.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that moxibustion may provide benefit to IBS patients although the risk of bias in the included studies is relatively high. Future studies are necessary to confirm whether this finding is reproducible in carefully-designed and conducted trials and to firmly establish the place of moxibustion in current practice.

Project description:In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupoint catgut embedding for the treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. We searched seven online databases to collect studies published up to Feb 29th, 2020. Study quality of each included article was evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were conducted based on the Cochrane systematic review method by using RevMan 5.3 software. Among the included trials, acupoint catgut embedding alone or plus oral western medicine or plus other acupoint-based therapies, or plus oral traditional Chinese medicine were the main therapies in the experimental groups. Interventions in control groups mainly include oral western medicine alone, other acupoint-based therapies alone, or other acupoint-based therapies alone. Primary outcomes in this study include recovery rate, accumulative marked effective rate, accumulative effective rate, and recurrence rate. Finally, 30 trials involving 1889 participants were included. The results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses show that acupoint catgut embedding alone or plus oral western medicine or plus other acupoint-based therapy or plus oral traditional Chinese medicine was significantly better compared with using oral western medicine alone in terms of efficacy for IBS-C and IBS-D. In addition, acupoint catgut embedding alone or plus oral western medicine or plus other acupoint-based therapy or plus oral traditional Chinese medicine could improve the effective rate and decrease the recurrence rate for IBS-D compared with using oral western medicine, other acupoint-based therapies, or oral traditional Chinese medicine alone. Adverse events of acupoint catgut embedding include local induration, redness, swelling, and itchiness, but they were all mild and disappeared swiftly with ordinary local interventions. There is an urgent need for RCTs of high quality and large sample size and with longer treatment duration and follow-up periods of acupoint catgut embedding for IBS.

Project description:BackgroundIrritable 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.MethodWe 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.ResultsForty-three RCTs, with 5,531 IBS patients, were included in this analysis. Firstly, we compared the efficacy of different probiotic species. B.coagulans 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, L.plantarum 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 L.acidophilus 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 B.coagulans using 8 weeks ranked first both in improving the abdominal pain and straining scores. Additionally, B. coagulans still had significant efficacy compared to different types of probiotic combinations in present study.ConclusionsThe findings of this NMA suggested that B.coagulans had prominent efficacy in treating IBS patients, and incorporating B.coagulans 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.

Dataset Information

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Irritable Bowel Syndrome After Infectious Enteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Publications

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Irritable Bowel Syndrome After Infectious Enteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets