Peppermint Oil for the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of enteric-coated peppermint oil capsules compared with placebo for the treatment of active irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). BACKGROUND: IBS is a common disorder that is often encountered in clinical practice. Medical interventions are limited and the focus is on symptom control. STUDY: Randomized placebo-controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of 2 weeks were considered for inclusion. Cross-over studies that provided outcome data before the first cross-over were included. A literature search upto February 2013 identified all applicable randomized-controlled trials. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcomes included global improvement of IBS symptoms, improvement in abdominal pain, and adverse events. Outcomes were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Nine studies that evaluated 726 patients were identified. The risk of bias was low for most of the factors assessed. Peppermint oil was found to be significantly superior to placebo for global improvement of IBS symptoms (5 studies, 392 patients, relative risk 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-2.81) and improvement in abdominal pain (5 studies, 357 patients, relative risk 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-2.79). Although peppermint oil patients were significantly more likely to experience an adverse event, such events were mild and transient in nature. The most commonly reported adverse event was heartburn. CONCLUSIONS: Peppermint oil is a safe and effective short-term treatment for IBS. Future studies should assess the long-term efficacy and safety of peppermint oil and its efficacy relative to other IBS treatments including antidepressants and antispasmodic drugs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".