Complementary and alternative medicine for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence supporting selected complementary and alternative medicine approaches used in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE (from January 1966), EMBASE (from January 1980), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until March 2008, combining the terms irritable bowel syndrome or irritable colon with complementary therapies, alternative medicine, acupuncture, fiber, peppermint oil, herbal, traditional, yoga, massage, meditation, mind, relaxation, probiotic, hypnotherapy, psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, or behavior therapy. Results were screened to include only clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Level I evidence was available for most interventions. MAIN MESSAGE: Soluble fibre improves constipation and global IBS symptoms. Peppermint oil alleviates IBS symptoms, including abdominal pain. Probiotic trials show overall benefit for IBS but there is little evidence supporting the use of any specific strain. Hypnotherapy and cognitive-behavioural therapy are also effective therapeutic options for appropriate patients. Certain herbal formulas are supported by limited evidence, but safety is a potential concern. All interventions are supported by systematic reviews or meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Several complementary and alternative therapies can be recommended as part of an evidence-based approach to the treatment of IBS; these might provide patients with satisfactory relief and improve the therapeutic alliance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".