Endometriosis and irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To estimate the pooled odds ratio of endometriosis and irritable bowel syndrome, and to estimate the pooled prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in patients with endometriosis. Data sources: Using Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Science Direct, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, and CINAHL, we conducted a systematic literature search through October 2021, using the key terms "endometriosis" and "irritable bowel syndrome." Articles had to be published in English or Spanish. No restriction on geographical location was applied. Methods of study selection: The following eligibility criteria were applied: full-text original articles; human studies; studies that investigated the association between endometriosis and irritable bowel syndrome. Two investigators screened and reviewed the studies. A total of 1,776 studies were identified in 6 separate databases. After screening and applying the eligibility criteria, a total of 17 studies were included for analyses. The meta-analysis of association between endometriosis and irritable bowel syndrome included 11 studies, and the meta-analysis on the prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in endometriosis included 6 studies. Tabulation integration and results: Overall 96,119 subjects were included in the main meta-analysis (11 studies) for endometriosis and irritable bowel syndrome, with 18,887 endometriosis patients and 77,171 controls. The odds of irritable bowel syndrome were approximately 3 times higher among patients with endometriosis compared with healthy controls (odds ratio 2.97; 95% confidence interval, 2.17 - 4.06). Similar results were obtained after subgroup analyses by endometriosis diagnosis, irritable bowel syndrome diagnostic criteria, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores. Six studies reported prevalence rates of irritable bowel syndrome in women with endometriosis, ranging from 10.6 to 52%. The pooled prevalence of irritable bowel syndrome in women with endometriosis was 23.4% (95% confidence interval, 9.7 - 37.2). Conclusion: Patients with endometriosis have an approximately threefold increased risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome. Development and recent update of Rome criteria has evolved the diagnosis of IBS, potential bias should still be considered as there are no specific tests available for diagnosis. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/displa y_record.php?ID=CRD42018080611], identifier [CRD42018080611].
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".