MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883916703 · doi:10.1038/s41395-018-0195-4

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Efficacy of a Gluten-Free Diet and a Low FODMAPS Diet in Treating Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome

2018· review· en· W2883916703 on OpenAlexafffund
Joanna C. Dionne, Alexander C. Ford, Yuhong Yuan, William D. Chey, Brian E. Lacy, Yuri A. Saito, Eamonn M.M. Quigley, Paul Moayyedi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAmerican College of Gastroenterology
KeywordsMedicineIrritable bowel syndromeRandomized controlled trialGluten freeInternal medicineMEDLINECochrane LibraryMeta-analysisInclusion and exclusion criteriaSystematic reviewGastroenterologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Dietary triggers such as gluten and highly fermentable oligo-, di- and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP)-containing foods have been associated with worsening irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms. However, the true impact of dietary restriction on IBS symptoms has remained unclear. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of exclusion diets (we focused on low FODMAP and gluten-free diets (GFD)) in IBS. METHODS: We conducted a search of the literature using the electronic databases MEDLINE (1946 to November 2017), EMBASE (1974 to November 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (November 2017), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 to November, 2017) for RCTs of exclusion diets in IBS. Two independent reviewers screened citations and a third reviewer resolved disagreement. Two independent reviewers performed eligibility assessment and data abstraction. For inclusion, RCTs that evaluated an exclusion diet versus an alternative or usual diet and assessed improvement in either global IBS symptoms or abdominal pain were required. Data were synthesized as relative risk of symptoms remaining using a random effects model. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: A total of 1726 citations were identified. After full-text screening a total of nine studies were eligible for the systematic review. There were two RCTs of a GFD, involving 111 participants. Both selected patients who responded to a GFD and then randomized them to continue the diet or have the diet “spiked” with gluten. A GFD was associated with reduced global symptoms compared with a control diet (RR = 0.42; 95% CI 0.11 to 1.55;I2 = 88%), although this was not statistically significant. There were seven RCTs comparing a low FODMAP diet with various control interventions in 397 participants. A low FODMAP diet was associated with reduced global symptoms compared with control interventions (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88;I2 = 25%). The three RCTS that compared low FODMAP diet with rigorous control diets had the least heterogeneity between studies, but also the least magnitude of effect. The overall quality of the data was “very low” according to GRADE criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend a GFD to reduce IBS symptoms. There is very low quality evidence that a low FODMAP diet is effective in reducing symptoms in IBS patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.038
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations375
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207