Dietary interventions for recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) in childhood
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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 of RAP includes children with different aetiologies for their pain. For the majority of such children, 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. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of dietary interventions for recurrent abdominal pain in school-age children. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, LILACS and JICST were searched using a strategy combining (Recurrent OR synonyms) AND (Abdomen OR synonyms) AND (Pain OR synonyms). Where appropriate, search filters were employed. In addition, researchers working in this area were asked to identify relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any study in which the majority of participants were school-age children fulfilling standard criteria for RAP, and who were allocated by random or quasi-random methods to any dietary treatment compared with a placebo or no treatment, were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: References identified by the searches were screened against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials were included in the review overall. Two comparing fibre supplements with placebo (Christensen 1982, Feldman 1985) were included, with data from one study reported in two papers (Christensen 1982, Christensen 1986). A total of 92 school-aged children participated in the two trials. The pooled odds ratio for improvement in the frequency of abdominal pain was 1.16 (95% CI 0.45-2.87). Two trials (Lebenthal 1981, Dearlove 1983) comparing lactose-containing with lactose-free diets were included. A total of 90 school-aged children participated in these two trials; however, neither trial 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 are continuing to try to contact the authors of the Lebenthal 1981 trial for more data. The authors of Dearlove 1983 reported that raw data from their trial is not available. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high quality evidence on the effectiveness or otherwise of dietary interventions. This review suggests that fibre supplements are not effective in the management of RAP, although the trials are small and of variable quality. The trials from lactose-restricting diets are as yet wholly inclusive. There is a need for well-designed trials (which include compliance measures) of all recommended dietary interventions for 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".