Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Given the complexity of the therapeutic management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), alternative non-pharmacological therapies are frequently offered to patients. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review in order to establish the current evidence base for non-pharmacological interventions (body-directed and mind-body therapies) in the management of IBS.

Materials and Methods

The literature was searched in several electronic databases (PubMed (including Medline), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Scopus (Elsevier), ScienceDirect (Elsevier), Cochrane Library (Wiley), and Wiley Online Library (Wiley)) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the English language from 1990 to 2020. Effectiveness outcomes were examined through the change in overall IBS symptoms or abdominal pain up to 12 months after treatment.

Results

11 studies (parallel-group RCTs) were identified that enrolled 1590 participants in total. Body-directed therapies (acupuncture and osteopathic medicine) showed a beneficial effect compared with standard medical treatment for overall IBS symptoms at 6 months follow-up, while no study found any difference between body-directed and sham therapies for abdominal pain or overall IBS symptoms. It was not possible to conclude whether hypnotherapy was superior to standard medical treatment or supportive therapy for overall IBS symptoms or abdominal pain due to discordant results.

Conclusions

Although body-directed therapies such as acupuncture and osteopathic medicine may be beneficial for overall IBS symptoms, higher-quality RCTs are needed to establish the clinical benefit of non-pharmacological interventions for IBS. An important challenge will be the definition of the optimal control groups to be used in non-pharmacological trials.

SUBMITTER: Amsallem F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8592737 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Visceral pain is a leading symptom for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) that affects 10% - 20 % of the world population. Conventional pharmacological treatments to manage IBS-related visceral pain is unsatisfactory. Recently, medications have emerged to treat IBS patients by targeting the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and peripheral nerves to alleviate visceral pain while avoiding adverse effects on the central nervous system (CNS). Several investigational drugs for IBS also target the periphery with minimal CNS effects.In this paper, reputable internet databases from 1960 - 2016 were searched including Pubmed and ClinicalTrials.org, and 97 original articles analyzed. Search was performed based on the following keywords and combinations: irritable bowel syndrome, clinical trial, pain, visceral pain, narcotics, opioid, chloride channel, neuropathy, primary afferent, intestine, microbiota, gut barrier, inflammation, diarrhea, constipation, serotonin, visceral hypersensitivity, nociceptor, sensitization, hyperalgesia.Certain conventional pain managing drugs do not effectively improve IBS symptoms, including NSAIDs, acetaminophen, aspirin, and various narcotics. Anxiolytic and antidepressant drugs (Benzodiazepines, TCAs, SSRI and SNRI) can attenuate pain in IBS patients with relevant comorbidities. Clonidine, gabapentin and pregabalin can moderately improve IBS symptoms. Lubiprostone relieves constipation predominant IBS (IBS-C) while loperamide improves diarrhea predominant IBS (IBS-D). Alosetron, granisetron and ondansetron can generally treat pain in IBS-D patients, of which alosetron needs to be used with caution due to cardiovascular toxicity. The optimal drugs for managing pain in IBS-D and IBS-C appear to be eluxadoline and linaclotide, respectively, both of which target peripheral GI tract.Conventional pain managing drugs are in general not suitable for treating IBS pain. Medications that target the GI tract and peripheral nerves have better therapeutic profiles by limiting adverse CNS effects.

Project description:IntroductionPostpartum fatigue is a common symptom among new mothers after their pregnancy. It has a considerable negative impact on women's functional and mental status as well as the development of babies. Identifying effective interventions to prevent or reduce postpartum fatigue is meaningful to improve the quality of life and avoid adverse outcomes of this vulnerable population. This systematic review aims to synthesise non-pharmacological evidence and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for reducing postpartum fatigue among puerperas.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ProQuest databases to identify clinical trials implementing non-pharmacological interventions conducted during 0-78 weeks postpartum for fatigue reduction. An additional search of OpenGrey will be conducted to identify grey literature. The search will be performed on 30 March 2021 without restrictions on time and language. Two independent reviewers will be responsible for study selection, data extraction and study quality assessment. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool will be adopted to evaluate the risk biases of the included randomised controlled trials, and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions will be applied to evaluate non-randomised controlled trials. Any disagreements will be referred to a third reviewer to reach a consensus. Findings will be qualitatively synthesised, and a meta-analysis will be conducted for the statistical combination if outcome data are sufficient and available.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not involve the collection of primary data and will be based on published data. Therefore, ethics approval is not required. The final findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and academic conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42021234869.

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.