Dataset Information

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for irritable bowel syndrome: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The global prevalence of Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is estimated to be as high as 15% and a number of different non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments have been used to manage IBS in clinical practice, which poses great challenges for clinicians to make appropriate decisions. Hence, a systematic review and network meta-analysis on all available pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for IBS is needed to provide reliable evidence.

Methods

We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedical medicine (CBM) from inception to 31, May 2019. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for IBS will be included. Study quality will be assessed on the basis of the methodology and categories described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Primary outcomes are global or clinical improvement and quality of life. A Bayesian network meta-analysis would be performed, and relative ranking of agents would be assessed. A node splitting method will be used to examine the inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons when a loop connecting 3 arms exists.

Results

Researchers will rank the effectiveness and safety of the potentials interventions for IBS according the characteristics of patients by conducting an advanced network meta-analysis based on Bayesian statistical model, and interpret the results by using GRADE approach.

Conclusion

The conclusion of our study will provide updated evidence to rank the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for IBS.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not applicable since this study is a network meta-analysis based on published trials.

Protocol registration number

CRD42018083844.

SUBMITTER: Zhou S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6709000 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for irritable bowel syndrome: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Zhou Shenghui S Liu Xiaoli X Wang Xiaoxia X Xi Fenglin F Luo Xiaoke X Yao Liang L Tang Hao H

Medicine 20190701 30

<h4>Background</h4>The global prevalence of Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is estimated to be as high as 15% and a number of different non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments have been used to manage IBS in clinical practice, which poses great challenges for clinicians to make appropriate decisions. Hence, a systematic review and network meta-analysis on all available pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for IBS is needed to provide reliable evidence.<h4>Methods</h4>We w ...[more]

PMID: 31348246

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ImportanceIncidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.ObjectiveTo compare pharmacological therapies for neonatal abstinence syndrome.Data sourcesSystematic review and network meta-analysis of Medline (1946-June 2018), Embase (1974-June 2018), Cochrane CENTRAL (1966-June 2018), Web of Science (1900-June 2018), and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2018).Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome alone or in combination with adjuvant treatments. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.).Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and data were pooled with fixed-effect models as a result of the low number of trials that were included in the analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the length of treatment. The length of stay, need for adjuvant therapy, and adverse events were considered as secondary outcomes.ResultsEighteen trials (N = 1072) were eligible for inclusion. The treatments that were included in the length of treatment analysis were buprenorphine, clonidine, diluted tincture of opium and clonidine, diluted tincture of opium, morphine, methadone, and phenobarbital. Sublingual buprenorphine was considered the optimal treatment for a reduction in the length of treatment (days: mean difference vs morphine, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.97 to -7.58]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) and length of stay (days: mean difference vs morphine, -11.43 [95% CI, -16.95 to -5.82]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) but not the need for adjuvant treatment (odds ratio vs morphine, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.46-3.44]; median rank, 3 [5-1]). The results were robust to bias but sensitive to imprecision.Conclusions and relevanceThe current evidence suggests that buprenorphine is the optimal treatment for neonatal abstinence treatment, but limitations are considerable and wide-scale adoption requires a large multisite trial. Morphine, which is considered standard of care in most hospitals, was the lowest-ranked opioid for length of treatment and length of stay.

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.

Dataset Information

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for irritable bowel syndrome: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Ethics and dissemination

Protocol registration number

Publications

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for irritable bowel syndrome: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets