Dataset Information

Efficacy of probiotic adjuvant therapy for irritable bowel syndrome in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) affects children's quality of life and learning. The purpose of this research was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of probiotic adjuvant therapy for IBS in children.

Methods

The Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Clinical Trials databases were electronically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to January 2021 exploring the use of probiotic adjuvant therapy for IBS in children. Strict screening and quality evaluations of the eligible articles were performed independently by 2 researchers. Outcome indexes were extracted, and a meta-analysis of the data was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 and STATA 16 software. Finally, the risk of bias in the included studies was assessed with the RCT bias risk assessment tool recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (5.1.0).

Results

A total of nine RCTs were included. In children, probiotics significantly reduced the abdominal pain score (I2 = 95%, SMD = -1.15, 95% (-2.05, -0.24), P = 0.01) and Subject's Global Assessment of Relief (SGARC) score (I2 = 95%, MD = -3.84, 95% (-6.49, -1.20), P = 0.004), increased the rate of abdominal pain treatment success (I2 = 0%, RR = 3.44, 95% (1.73, 6.87), P = 0.0005) and abdominal pain relief (I2 = 40%, RR = 1.48, 95% (0.96, 2.28), P = 0.08), and reduced the frequency of abdominal pain (I2 = 2%, MD = -0.82, 95% (-1.57, -0.07), P = 0.03). However, we found that it might not be possible to relieve abdominal pain by increasing the daily intake of probiotics.

Conclusions

Probiotics are effective at treating abdominal pain caused by IBS in children, however, there was no significant correlation between abdominal pain and the amount of probiotics ingested. More attention should be given to IBS in children, and a standardized evaluation should be adopted.

SUBMITTER: Xu HL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8345868 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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: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.

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 chronic gastrointestinal disorder involving gut-brain interactions with limited effective treatment options. Vitamin D deficiency is commonly observed in patients with IBS, but whether vitamin D supplementation ameliorates IBS is controversial in randomized controlled trials. The present systematic review and meta-analysis explored the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in patients with IBS.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of potentially relevant publications from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies and the Web of Science up until January 2022. We assessed the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS), IBS quality of life (IBS-QoL) and IBS total score (IBS-TS) before and after vitamin D supplementation intervention.ResultsWe included four randomized, placebo-controlled trials involving 335 participants. The differences in IBS-SSS score between participants in the intervention group and the placebo group increased after intervention (WMD: -55.55, 95% CI: -70.22 to -40.87, I2 = 53.7%, after intervention; WMD: -3.17, 95% CI: -18.15 to 11.81, I2 = 0.0%, before intervention). Participants receiving vitamin D supplementation showed greater improvement in IBS-SSS after intervention than participants receiving placebo treatment (WMD: -84.21, 95% CI: -111.38 to -57.05, I2 = 73.2%; WMD: -28.29, 95% CI: -49.95 to -6.62, I2 = 46.6%, respectively). Vitamin D supplementation was also superior to placebo in IBS-QoL improvement (WMD: 14.98, 95% CI: 12.06 to 17.90, I2 = 0.0%; WMD: 6.55, 95% CI: -2.23 to 15.33, I2 = 82.7%, respectively). Sensitivity analyses revealed an unstable pooled effect on IBS-TS in participants receiving vitamin D supplementation. Therefore, we did not evaluate the efficacy of vitamin D intervention in IBS-TS.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that vitamin D supplementation was superior to placebo for IBS treatment.

Project description:ObjectivesCurrent irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) treatments have limited efficacy and probiotics like Bacillus clausii (B. clausii) were found to be effective in the management of several gastrointestinal disorders. This phase III trial assessed the efficacy and safety of adding B. clausii (four strains: O/C, N/R, SIN, T), versus placebo, to conventional treatment of pediatric IBS in Mexico.MethodsPatients aged 6-17 years 11 months with IBS (Rome IV) for at least 2 months were randomized to receive either B. clausii (oral suspension, total dose 4 billion spores/day) or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. All patients also received conventional treatment. The primary endpoint was the difference in the proportion of patients with clinical improvements at Week 8 (Global Assessment Questions [GAQ]). Secondary endpoints included responders by Subject's Global Assessment of Relief for Children with IBS (SGARC); number/consistency of stools; abdominal distention/bloating; abdominal pain/intensity; and IBS behavior.Results73.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.3-80.0; B. clausii n = 129) and 78.5% (95% CI 72.5-84.4; placebo n = 130) of patients had symptom improvement (p = 0.8182). For Week 8 SGARC, 19.2% (B. clausii) and 20.9% (placebo) reported complete symptom relief. Stool evaluations, bloating, abdominal pain/intensity, and IBS behavior were similar between groups. Both treatments were well tolerated.ConclusionNo significant differences in efficacy between B. clausii and placebo were demonstrated in addition to conventional treatment. The sample size calculation was based on an expected placebo/conventional treatment response of 30-40%. However, the actual treatment response observed was 80% and, thus, a study with larger population would be warranted. In addition, this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when such controlled social conditions may have resulted in better diet, greater family stability, less psychological stress, and lower risk of infections exacerbating IBS, thereby improving symptoms in both groups.Eudract number2018-004519-31.