Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 64Gastrointestinal motility and disordersGinger and Zingiberaceae researchComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 14 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Is ginger effective for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome? A double blind randomized controlled pilot trial

Open access

Abstract

Objectives Ginger is one of the most commonly used herbal medicines for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) but no data exists about its effectiveness. Design Double blind randomized controlled trial. Setting University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. Intervention Forty-five IBS patients were randomly assigned to three groups: placebo, 1g of ginger, and 2g of ginger daily for 28 days. Main outcome measures The IBS severity scale (IBS-SS) was administered, as well as adequate relief of symptoms scale. A responder was defined as having at least 25% reduction in IBS-SS post-treatment. Results There were 57.1% responders to placebo, 46.7% to 1g and 33.3% to 2g of ginger. Adequate relief was reported by 53.3% on placebo and 53.3% in both ginger groups combined. Side effects were mild and reported by 35.7% in the placebo and 16.7% in the ginger groups. Conclusions This double blind randomized controlled pilot study suggests ginger is well tolerated but did not perform better than placebo. Larger trials are needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

In this double-blind randomized pilot trial, ginger (1 g or 2 g daily for 28 days) was well tolerated but did not outperform placebo for IBS symptom relief. The authors conclude larger trials are needed before definitive conclusions.

Key findings

  • Treatment responders (≥25% reduction in IBS-SS) were 57.1% on placebo, 46.7% on 1 g ginger, and 33.3% on 2 g ginger; differences were not significant (p > .05).
  • Adequate relief was reported by 53.3% on placebo and 53.3% in both ginger groups combined (p > .05).
  • IBS severity scores fell significantly in the placebo (34.8%) and 1 g ginger (26.4%) groups; the discussion notes a 26% symptom decrease with 1 g versus 12% with 2 g of ginger.
  • Side effects were mild and reported by 35.7% of the placebo group versus 16.7% of the ginger groups; most were gastrointestinal (heartburn, nausea, stool changes, bloating, hunger suppression), with two subjects reporting headaches and tiredness.

Methods

  • Double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel-group pilot trial at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; 45 adults (age 18+) with physician-diagnosed IBS verified by Rome III criteria, recruited by mass e-mail to students, staff, and faculty, with 15 subjects randomly assigned to each of three arms (placebo, 1 g ginger, 2 g ginger daily) for 28 days.
  • Pharmaceutical-grade ginger (2.29 mg/g gingerols and 6-shogaols) and brown-sugar placebo were blister packed by a compounding pharmacy for blinding; compliance was 97.3% (placebo), 98.5% (1 g), and 85.2% (2 g).
  • Outcomes were the IBS Severity Scale (IBS-SS) and the Adequate Relief Rating Scale (ARRS); paired t-tests compared pre/post IBS severity scores and Chi-square tests compared responder percentages and ARRS across arms.

Limitations

  • Stated by the authors: small sample size, short treatment duration, recruitment among university employees and students, and absence of investigator blinding during the analysis phase, all limiting generalizability and definitive conclusions.
  • Stated by the authors: as a pilot study it may not be powered to detect significant results, and the placebo response (57%) was considerably higher than the ~40% average reported in IBS trials.
  • Evident from the text: the trial enrolled only the first 45 of 181 interested and screened patients, and the authors note that consent-form information about ginger's potential benefits may itself have raised treatment expectancies and inflated the placebo response.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ctim.2013.12.015

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 10 Not checked · 31 Own results and interpretations

19 more claims

Create a free account to see all 41 claims and to verify the 12 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 9
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 10
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

Create a free account to see these claims.

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?

2 more claims about this paper

Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.

See all claims — free account

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 64

Metadata

Authors
van Tilburg, M. A. L., Palsson, O. S., Ringel, Y., & Whitehead, W. E.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
van Tilburg, Miranda A.L.
Venue
Complementary Therapies in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-02
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
17-20
ISSN
0965-2299 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135013258
Cited by
64
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Complementary Therapies in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R24DK067674)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Ginger and Zingiberaceae research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Keywords
ginger, irritable bowel syndrome, herbal medicine, symptom relief, placebo comparison, tolerability, dose comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Double-Blind Method, Humans, North Carolina, Plant Extracts, Severity of Illness Index, Placebo Effect, Chi-Square Distribution, Zingiber officinale, 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 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is ginger effective for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome? A double blind randomized controlled pilot trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ctim.2013.12.015
The paper
van Tilburg, M. A. L., Palsson, O. S., Ringel, Y., & Whitehead, W. E. (2014). Is ginger effective for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome? A double blind randomized controlled pilot trial. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2013.12.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.