Dietary interventions for recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 4% and 25% of school-age children complain of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) of sufficient severity to interfere with daily activities. It is unclear whether the diagnosis includes children with different aetiologies for their pain. For the majority no organic cause for their pain can be found on physical examination or investigation. Although most children are likely managed by reassurance and simple measures, a large range of interventions have been recommended.To determine the effectiveness of dietary interventions for recurrent abdominal pain in school-age children.The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) 2006 (Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to Dec 2006), EMBASE (1980 to Dec 2006), CINAHL (1982 to Dec 2007), ERIC (1966 to Dec 2006), PsycINFO (1872 to Dec 2006), LILACS (1982 to Dec 2006), SIGLE (1980 to March 2005), and JICST (1985 to 06/2000) were searched . Where appropriate, search filters were employed. In addition, researchers working in this area were asked to identify relevant studies.Randomised or quasi-randomised studies of any dietary treatment versus placebo or no treatment in school-age children with a diagnosis of RAP or functional gastrointestinal disorder based on the Rome II criteria.Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed quality and extracted data. Where appropriate studies were pooled using a random effects meta-analysis.Seven trials were included in this review. Two trials, including 83 participants, compared fibre supplements with placebo (Christensen 1982, Feldman 1985), with data from one study reported in two papers (Christensen 1982, Christensen 1986). The pooled odds ratio for improvement in the frequency of abdominal pain was 1.16 (95% CI 0.45-2.87). Two trials, including 90 participants (Lebenthal 1981, Dearlove 1983) compared lactose-containing with lactose-free diets. Neither reported data in a form which could be used in the meta-analysis and the former trial had a loss to follow-up of 45%. We were not able to obtain further data for either trial. Three trials (Bausserman 2005, Gavronska 2007, Young 1997) comparing supplementation with Lactobacillus with placebo met the inclusion criteria but only two (Bausserman 2005, Gavronska 2007), including a total of 168 children, provided analysable data. The pooled odds ratio for improvement of symptoms was 1.17 (95% CI 0.62, 2.21).There is a lack of high quality evidence on the effectiveness of dietary interventions. This review provides no evidence that fibre supplements, lactose free diets or lactobacillus supplementation are effective in the management of children with RAP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".