A meta-analysis and systematic review of the comorbidity between irritable bowel syndrome and bipolar disorder.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tseng PT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5370825 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A meta-analysis and systematic review of the comorbidity between irritable bowel syndrome and bipolar disorder.
Tseng Ping-Tao PT Zeng Bing-Syuan BS Chen Yen-Wen YW Wu Ming-Kung MK Wu Ching-Kuan CK Lin Pao-Yen PY
Medicine 20160801 33
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and bipolar disorder (BD) are 2 distinct diseases but may share a similar pathophysiology. However, the comorbidity rate of these 2 diseases is unclear. Also, the current practice guidelines suggest prescribing antidepressants to IBS patients. However, this practice may increase the risk of phase-shift to manic episodes in IBS patients comorbid with BD.This study aimed to determine the relationship between IBS and BD through a meta-analysis.Electronic research thro ...[more]
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.
| S-EPMC3671917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are respectively one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases and functional bowel diseases in the world. Recent studies suggest that patients with IBS seem to have a higher risk of PD, which conflicts with the result of previous meta-analysis. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate all available evidence, in order to clarify the association between PD and IBS. Methods: Two reviewers independently searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library on April 25, 2021 to identify all records that explore the association between IBS and PD. All reports that clearly define PD and IBS and analyze the relationship between the two were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Results: Five studies from four articles involving 2,044,110 subjects were included in this analysis. The pooled results demonstrated a significant association between PD and IBS (1.48; 95% CI: 1.35-1.62, P < 0.001), with subtle heterogeneity (I 2 = 0.0%, p = 0.585). The association was observed across genders and increased with age. However, the available evidence cannot allow a reliable analysis of the causal relationship between IBS and PD. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a higher risk of PD among subjects with IBS. Future studies are required to further clarify the causation and underlying mechanism of the association.
| S-EPMC8492947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundModulating gut microbiota is a potential treatment for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This meta-analysis explored whether fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is successful in treating IBS.MethodsA systematic review was performed to find trials on FMT in IBS. Ratios and relative ratios (RR) of improvement for single-arm trials (SATs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were calculated, respectively. Changes in IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS) and IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) instrument compared to baseline in FMT versus placebo groups were pooled.ResultsIn SATs, 59.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 49.1-69.3) of IBS patients showed significant improvement. In RCTs, there were no differences between FMT and control in improvement (RR=0.93 (95% CI 0.50-1.75)) or changes in the IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL.ConclusionsFMT was not effective in IBS. Variations in FMT methods and patient factors may contribute to the heterogeneous results of the trials.
| S-EPMC6794695 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3851749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional intestinal disease characterized by chronic or recurrent abdominal pain, abdominal distension, constipation and diarrhea. Many IBS sufferers are usually present with poor quality of life for the abdominal discomfort, diarrhea, constipation, and other complaints. At present, the commonly used drug therapy for IBS in the Western clinic, such as antidiarrheal, laxative, gastrointestinal antispasmodic, often cannot get satisfying curative effect. Thus complementary therapies like electroacupuncture (EA) which may be effective to decrease patients' pain and fewer side-effects will be sought. EA, an innovative form of traditional acupuncture, is drawing more attention to the treatment of IBS due to its roles in symptom improvement. This systematic review protocol aims at describing a meta-analysis to critically evaluate the effectiveness and safety on EA for patients with IBS.MethodsWe search Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Databases (AMED), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for random controlled trials EA for IBS from their inception to April 1, 2018. Two reviewers will independently screen studies for data extraction and assess the quality and risk of bias. RevManV5. 3 will be applied to data extraction. Risk of bias for each RCT will be assessed according to criteria by the Cochrane Handbook to evaluate the methodological quality.ResultsThis study will provide a high-quality synthesis of current evidence of effectiveness and safety on EA for patients with IBS.ConclusionThe conclusion of our systematic review will provide evidence to judge whether EA is an effective intervention for patient with IBS.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018081610.
| S-EPMC6081165 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9010660 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7735853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIrritable bowel syndrome is a functional gastrointestinal disease. Evidence has suggested that probiotics may benefit IBS symptoms. However, clinical trials remain conflicting.AimsTo implement a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of probiotics for IBS patients.MethodsWe searched for relevant trials in Medline(1966 to Jan 2019), Embase(1974 to Jan 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(up to Jan 2019), the ClinicalTrials.gov trials register(up to Jan 2019), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database(1978 to Jan 2019). Risk ratio (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI were calculated for continuous outcomes.ResultsA total of 59 studies, including 6,761 patients, were obtained. The RR of the improvement or response with probiotics versus placebo was 1.52 (95% CI 1.32-1.76), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 71%, P < 0.001). The SMD of Probiotics in improving global IBS symptoms vs. Placebo was -1.8(95% CI -0.30 to -0.06), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 65%, P < 0.001). It was impossible to draw a determinate conclusion. However, there were differences in subgroup analyses of probiotics type, dose, treatment duration, and geographic position. Probiotics seem to be safe by the analysis of adverse events(RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.92-1.24; I2 = 0, P = 0.83).ConclusionProbiotics are effective and safe for IBS patients. Single probiotics with a higher dose (daily dose of probiotics ≥1010) and shorter duration (< 8 weeks) seem to be a better choice, but it still needs more trials to prove it.
| S-EPMC7147251 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent gastrointestinal disease with no effective treatment. Altered microbiota composition seems implicated in disease etiology and therefore fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) has emerged as a possible treatment therapy. To clarify the clinical parameters impacting FMT efficacy, we conducted a systematic review with subgroup analysis.MethodsA literature search was performed identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FMT with placebo in IBS adult patients (8-week follow-up) with a reported improvement in global IBS symptoms.ResultsSeven RCTs (489 participants) met the eligibility requirements. Although FMT seems not to be effective in global improvement of IBS symptoms, subgroup analysis shows that FMT through gastroscopy or nasojejunal tube are effective IBS treatments (RR 3.03; 95% CI 1.94-4.73; I2 = 10%, p < 0.00001). When considering non-oral ingestion routes, IBS patients with constipation symptoms are more likely to benefit from FMT administration (p = 0.003 for the difference between IBS subtypes regarding constipation). Fresh fecal transplant and bowel preparation seem also to have impact on FMT efficacy (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively).ConclusionOur meta-analysis revealed a set of critical steps that could affect the efficacy of FMT as clinical procedure to treat IBS, nevertheless more RCTs are needed.
| S-EPMC10003588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal condition with a heterogeneous pathophysiology. An altered gut microbiome has been identified in some IBS patients, and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been suggested to treat IBS. We performed meta-analyses and systematic review of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of FMT in IBS.Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. Selection criteria included RCTs of FMT vs placebo using FMT excipients or autologous FMT in IBS. Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the summary relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of combined studies for primary outcome of improvement in global IBS symptoms as measured by accepted integrative symptom questionnaires or dichotomous responses to questions of overall symptom improvement.Results: Among 742 citations identified, 7 were deemed to be potentially relevant, of which 4 studies involving 254 participants met eligibility. No significant difference in global improvement of IBS symptoms was observed at 12 weeks in FMT vs placebo (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.48-1.79). Heterogeneity among studies was significant (I = 79%). Subgroup analyses revealed benefits of single-dose FMT using colonoscopy and nasojejunal tubes in comparison with autologous FMT for placebo treatment (number needed to treat = 5, RR = 1.59; 95% CI 1.06-2.39; I = 0%) and a reduction in likelihood of improvement of multiple-dose capsule FMT RCTs (number needed to harm = 3, RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.34-0.85; I = 13%). Placebo response was 33.7% in nonoral FMT RCTs and 67.8% in capsule FMT RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation quality of the body of evidence was very low.Discussion: Current evidence from RCTs does not suggest a benefit of FMT for global IBS symptoms. There remain questions regarding the efficacy of FMT in IBS as well as the lack of a clean explanation on the discrepant results among RCTs in subgroup analyses.
| S-EPMC7257434 | biostudies-literature