The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Short-term and Long-term Efficacy of Psychological Therapies for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of psychological therapies for reducing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, no meta-analysis has investigated the duration of these effects. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the immediate, short-term, and long-term efficacy of psychotherapy for reducing GI symptoms in adults with IBS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses through August 15, 2015 for randomized controlled trials that compared psychological therapy with an active or non-active comparison (control) condition for treatment of GI symptoms in adults with IBS. RESULTS: Forty-one trials were included in our meta-analysis, comprising data from 2290 individuals (1183 assigned to psychotherapy and 1107 assigned to a control condition). Compared with a mixed group of control conditions, psychological therapies had a medium effect on GI symptom severity (d¯ = 0.69) immediately after treatment. On average, individuals who received psychotherapy had a greater reduction in GI symptoms after treatment than 75% of individuals assigned to a control condition. After short-term follow-up periods (1-6 months after treatment) and long-term follow-up periods (6-12 months after treatment), this effect remained significant and medium in magnitude (d¯ = 0.76 and d¯ = 0.73, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological therapies reduce GI symptoms in adults with IBS. These effects remained significant and medium in magnitude after short-term and long-term follow-up periods.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that psychological therapies produce a medium-sized reduction in GI symptoms in adults with IBS immediately after treatment, and these effects remain significant and medium-sized at short-term (1–6 months) and long-term (6–12 months) follow-up. The analysis included 41 RCTs and 2290 participants.
Key findings
- Across 41 trials (1183 psychotherapy, 1107 control), psychological therapies reduced GI symptom severity immediately after treatment versus mixed controls: d=0.69, P<.001, 95% CI 0.52–0.86; the average psychotherapy participant improved more than 75% of controls.
- Effects remained medium-sized at short-term follow-up (14 trials; d=0.76, P<.001, 95% CI 0.54–0.97) and long-term follow-up (10 trials; d=0.73, P<.001, 95% CI 0.43–1.03). In the 5 trials with all three intervals, effects were d=0.54 immediately, d=0.76 short-term, and d=0.73 long-term.
- No significant moderator effects were found for therapeutic modality (cognitive d=0.73, hypnosis d=0.78, relaxation d=0.72; Q=0.08, P=.960), delivery method (online vs in-person; Q=1.98, P=.160), format (group vs individual; Q=0.19, P=.666), dose, control type (active vs non-active; Q=0.01, P=.929), or publication date. Country differed: Sweden d=1.14 vs US d=0.54 and UK d=0.32.
- Attrition risk of bias moderated effects: high-risk studies showed d=−0.03 (P=.875), versus unclear d=0.83 and low d=0.73 (Q=13.15, P=.001). No significant publication bias was detected at immediate, short-term, or long-term follow-up by Egger and rank correlation tests.
Methods
- Systematic review and meta-analysis conducted per PRISMA with an a priori protocol. Searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses through August 15, 2015 for RCTs comparing psychological therapy with active or non-active control for GI symptoms in adults with IBS.
- Included 41 unique trials comprising 2290 individuals (1183 psychotherapy, 1107 control). Eligible trials assessed continuous GI symptom outcomes, were written in English, and excluded quasi-randomized allocation, support-group-only interventions, and dichotomous outcomes.
- Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were computed and pooled with random-effects weights using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis v3.3.070. Heterogeneity was assessed with Q, τ², and I²; risk of bias used the Cochrane tool; pre-specified moderator analyses examined therapy type, delivery, format, dose, control type, country, and publication date.
Limitations
- Stated: substantial between-trial variability in measures, inclusion criteria, and control conditions; effects may vary by individual patient characteristics, but this was impossible to assess because of inconsistent reporting and limited diversity (participants were mostly female and mostly white in trials reporting these data).
- Stated: no trial was rated low risk of bias in every domain; after excluding blinding, only 9 trials were low risk in all remaining domains. Few studies collected short-term or long-term follow-up data, and only 3 online therapy trials were included.
- Evident: heterogeneity was substantial (I²=70.56 immediate, 58.63 short-term, 74.86 long-term), and high attrition-bias studies showed no significant effect, which may limit confidence in pooled estimates.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
24 Own result · 12 Not checked yet · 8 Own method · 4 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a significant effect of risk of bias in the domain of attrition (Q ¼ 13.15, P ¼ .001).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Impact of Bias
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In 2 of these trials, the treatment group improved more than the control group on a dichotomous outcome measure identified by the authors as the primary outcome.57,59”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [57] Shinozaki, 2010, Effect of autogenic training on general improvement in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial, Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback source
- Not checked yetcites [59] Tkachuk, 2003, Randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behavioral group therapy for irritable bowel syndrome in a medical setting, Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(d ¼ 0.73, P < .001;95% CI, 0.43-1.03;Q ¼ 35.80,P < .001,s 2 ¼ 0.17, I 2 ¼ 74.86).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Selective Reporting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within therapies administered in person, there was no significant difference in the effect of interventions administered in a group (d ¼ 0.56, P ¼ .004;95% CI, 0.18-0.94)vs individual format (d ¼ 0.66, P < .001;95% CI, 0.47-0.84;Q ¼ 0.19, P ¼ .666).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Meta-analysis of Psychological Therapies for IBS 941
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no evidence of significant publication bias at the first post-treatment follow-up, as indicated by the Egger test (b ¼ 0.57, P ¼ .583)and the rank correlation test (s ¼ 0.09, P ¼ .439).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Impact of Bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a medium effect of psychotherapy on GI symptoms at short-term follow-up compared with mixed control conditions (d ¼ 0.76, P < .001;95% CI, 0.54-0.97;Q ¼ 31.43,P ¼ .003,s 2 ¼ .10,I 2 ¼ 58.63).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Short-term Follow-up
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 2 . Figure 2. Mean effects of psychological therapies on GI symptoms compared with mixed group of control conditions at the first post-treatment assessment.”
- Also stated in: § Selective Reporting · plain
“(d ¼ 0.73, P < .001;95% CI, 0.43-1.03;Q ¼ 35.80,P < .001,s 2 ¼ 0.17, I 2 ¼ 74.86).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Selective Reporting
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Selective Reporting · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the United Kingdom (d ¼ 0.32, P ¼ .014;95% CI, 0.06-0.58;Q ¼ 8.84, P ¼ .003).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Meta-analysis of Psychological Therapies for IBS 941
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results are encouraging, but only 3 trials included in our meta-analysis assessed healthcare utilization as an outcome.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no statistically significant difference between the effect sizes of interventions delivered online (d ¼ 1.33, P ¼ .006;95% CI, 0.38-2.27)vs in-person ðd ¼ 0.64, P < .001;95% CI, 0.47-0.80;Q ¼ 1.98, P ¼ .160).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Meta-analysis of Psychological Therapies for IBS 941
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 12
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the majority of studies used interventions that combined several different treatment modalities, making it difficult to sort studies into discrete categories.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, this was impossible to assess in the current metaanalysis because of inconsistent reporting and limited diversity (participants were mostly female and mostly white in trials that reported these data).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The numbers of trials meeting criteria for low risk of bias that was due to (1) allocation sequence, (2) concealment of allocation sequence, (3) blinding, (4) incomplete outcome data, and (5) selective reporting were 21, 16, 1, 22, and 34, respectively.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Risk of Bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Number of sessions (b ¼ -0.02, P ¼ .527),average session duration (b < 0.01, P ¼ .491),therapy duration (b ¼ 0.01, P ¼ .886),and session frequency (b ¼ -0.04, P ¼.887) were not significantly correlated with effect size.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Meta-analysis of Psychological Therapies for IBS 941
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, few studies collected short-term or long-term follow-up data.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Forty-one trials were included in our meta-analysis, comprising data from 2290 individuals (1183 assigned to psychotherapy and 1107 assigned to a control condition).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Abstract
plainn = 2,290- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figure 3 . Figure 3. Mean effects of psychological therapies on GI symptoms compared with control conditions for the 5 studies that included data for all 3 follow-up intervals by follow-up interval.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Selective Reporting
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“These results are comparable to findings from a recent meta-analysis of the efficacy of psychotherapy for depression, 65 in which number of treatment sessions was not significantly associated with effect size after controlling for other relevant study variables.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65] Cuijpers, 2013, How much psychotherapy is needed to treat depression? a metaregression analysis, J Affect Disord source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Meta-analyses suggest that psychological therapies are as effective as antidepressants in reducing GI symptoms in IBS immediately after treatment, with a number needed to treat between 2 and 4. [5][6][7]”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Ford, 2014, Effect of antidepressants and psychological therapies, including hypnotherapy, in irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis, Am J Gastroenterol source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Ford, 2009, Efficacy of antidepressants and psychological therapies in irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis, Gut source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Lackner, 2004, Psychological treatments for irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Consult Clin Psychol source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our results were similar to a recently published metaanalysis that used binary outcome data to compare the efficacy of psychotherapy vs antidepressant medications for reducing GI symptoms in IBS.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Ford, 2014, Effect of antidepressants and psychological therapies, including hypnotherapy, in irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis, Am J Gastroenterol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The average effect on GI symptoms after treatment (d ¼ 0.69) in our analysis was similar to that reported previously for bowel dysfunction (d ¼ 0.57) and considerably higher than that reported previously for abdominal pain (d ¼ 0.27) in the only previously published meta-analysis on this topic using continuous outcomes.7”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Lackner, 2004, Psychological treatments for irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Consult Clin Psychol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The remaining trial 56 used walking as a comparison condition, which could arguably be conceptualized as an active treatment rather than a control condition.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [56] Shahabi, 2016, Self-regulation evaluation of therapeutic yoga and walking for patients with irritable bowel syndrome: a pilot study, Psychology, Health & Medicine source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of psychological therapies for reducing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of the nature of psychotherapy, it is impossible for patients to be blinded to intervention content.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Blinding
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement and followed an a priori established protocol.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The risk of bias assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration 22 for RCTs was used to assess the following possible sources of bias in included trials”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Assessment of Risk of Bias
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Higgins J, Altman D. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins J, Green S, eds. The Cochrane Collaboration: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.1. 2008. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessment of eligibility and data extraction were each performed independently by 2 authors, and ITT data were used wherever possible.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, group format may be an effective and economical method of delivering psychological therapies to adults with IBS.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ITT data were used wherever possible.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“L.S.W. and S.D.H. were consulted in unclear cases; disagreement was resolved through discussion.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Authors were aware of the names of the study authors, results, and other publication information.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effect size data were entered by the first author (K.T.L.) and checked by another (A.C.R.).”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A single reviewer (K.T.L.) coded all other variables.”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
No meta-analysis has investigated the duration of the effects of psychological therapies on GI symptoms in IBS.
“However, no meta-analysis has investigated the duration of these effects.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Dichotomous outcome measures measure a different underlying construct than continuous measures.
“Dichotomous outcome measures were ineligible because these were assumed to measure a different underlying construct than continuous measures.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In addition, although previous reviews have demonstrated the short and long-term efficacy of psychological therapies for IBS, [98] regardless of delivery method (in person or online), our study demonstrated that CBT via telephone appeared to be the most beneficial in the long-term.”
From Efficacy of psychological therapies for irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“The same two reviewers independently appraised included studies’ quality using indicators identified by the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) level of evidence scheme.29,30”
From Benchmarks of Significant Change After Aphasia Rehabilitation (2019) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
“Assessment of eligibility and data extraction were each performed independently by 2 authors”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Additional information
“The first author (K.T.L.) screened titles/abstracts for relevance and evaluated all potentially relevant articles in detail to determine eligibility.L.S.W. and S.D.H. were consulted in unclear cases; disagreement was resolved through discussion.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Selective Reporting
“| Svedlund | | Unclear | Unclear | (High) | 1.98 | N | Low | Low |”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Attrition
“Studies providing ITT data and that had a participant dropout rate of 20% or less at the first post-treatment follow-up were coded as having a low risk of bias because of handling of incomplete outcome data.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Discussion
“Assessment of eligibility and data extraction were each performed independently by 2 authors”
§ SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES Fasiha Kanwal, Section > Additional information
“Effect size data were entered by the first author (K.T.L.) and checked by another (A.C.R.).A single reviewer (K.T.L.) coded all other variables.”
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · Cited by 3,396
Global Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Meta-analysis
Lovell, R. M., & Ford, A. C. (2012) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2012.02.029 · Cited by 2,155
Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies.
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1977) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.32.9.752 · Cited by 2,154
The epidemiology of irritable bowel syndrome
Card, T., Canavan, C., & West, J. (2014) · Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.2147/clep.s40245 · Cited by 889
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Sockloff, A. L. (1978) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(78)90080-0 · Cited by 715
Everhart, J. E., & Ruhl, C. E. (2009) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.015 · Cited by 609
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Siegel KM. The effects of emotional disclosure on physical symptoms, healthcare utilization, and psychosocial adjustment in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. PhD dissertation. Alliant International University, San Diego, CA, 2003.
- Ljotsson, 2011, Acceptability, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of internet-based exposure treatment for irritable bowel syndrome in a clinical sample: a randomized controlled trial, BMC Gastroenterol, 11, 110, 10.1186/1471-230x-11-110 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Lacy, B. E., Pimentel, M., Brenner, D. M., Chey, W. D., Keefer, L. A., Long, M. D., & Moshiree, B. (2021) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001036 · Cited by 893
“For example, level 1 evidence for GDPs in the management of IBS shows efficacy and durability (232,248,249) with a slight advantage of CBT, which has themost RCTs.”
BackgroundCurrent Psychosomatic Practice
Fava, G. A., Cosci, F., & Sonino, N. (2017) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000448856 · Cited by 302
Black, C. J., Thakur, E. R., Houghton, L. A., Quigley, E. M. M., Moayyedi, P., & Ford, A. C. (2020) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321191 · Cited by 299
“The primary outcome assessed was the efficacy of all psychological therapies and control interventions in IBS, in terms of effect on global IBS symptoms or abdominal pain after completion of therapy.”
InfluentialA Rome Working Team Report on Brain-Gut Behavior Therapies for Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction
Keefer, L., Ballou, S. K., Drossman, D. A., Ringstrom, G., Elsenbruch, S., & Ljótsson, B. (2022) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2021.09.015 · Cited by 213
Lackner, J. M., Jaccard, J., Keefer, L., Brenner, D. M., Firth, R. S., Gudleski, G. D., Hamilton, F. A., Katz, L. A., Krasner, S. S., Ma, C.-X., et al. (2018) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.063 · Cited by 191
Metadata
- Authors
- Laird, K. T., Tanner-Smith, E. E., Russell, A. C., Hollon, S. D., & Walker, L. S.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Laird, Kelsey T.
- Venue
- Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 937-947.e4
- ISSN
- 1542-3565 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2215411395
- Semantic Scholar
- 83fd7c8ee686a4fe7eea24cefa1e1f714177bd42
- Cited by
- 135
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10
- FWCI
- 1.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Health and Development
- Keywords
- irritable bowel syndrome, psychotherapy, gastrointestinal symptoms, symptom severity, long-term efficacy, short-term follow-up
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Psychotherapy, Time, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Irritable Bowel Syndrome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
