Efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants in irritable bowel syndrome: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) as a therapeutic option for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) through meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. For the years 1966 until September 2008, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TCAs in the management of IBS. Seven randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials met our criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. TCAs used in the treatment arm of these trials included amitriptyline, imipramine, desipramine, doxepin and trimipramine. The pooled relative risk for clinical improvement with TCA therapy was 1.93 (95% CI: 1.44 to 2.6, P < 0.0001). Effect size of TCAs versus placebo for mean change in abdominal pain score among the two studies was -44.15 (95% CI: -53.27 to -35.04, P < 0.0001). It is concluded that low dose TCAs exhibit clinically and statistically significant control of IBS symptoms.
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".