Evidence-based and mechanistic insights into exclusion diets for IBS
Abstract
Exclusion diets are becoming increasingly popular in the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Several mechanisms exist by which food items might cause gastrointestinal symptoms, such as direct osmotic effects of food in the gut lumen, changes to the gut microbiota and immune activation. These effects have been demonstrated in animal models and in human studies, particularly in the case of gluten-free diets and diets low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs). Indeed, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that gluten-free diets and low-FODMAP diets improve IBS symptoms, and guidelines recommend the latter approach for treating symptoms in some patients with IBS. Designing such RCTs is challenging as participants need to eat so an 'inert' placebo is not an option. Blinding is also an issue with these studies; in the future, new exclusion diets should not advertise what the diet consists of until it is proved to reduce symptoms. In this Review, we outline the advantages and disadvantages of each choice of control group and emphasize the importance of collecting mechanistic data (regarding direct effects of food on the gut lumen, changes in gut microbiota and intestinal inflammation) as well as symptom data in RCTs of exclusion diets in IBS.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There are multiple mechanisms by which food may trigger symptoms in IBS, including primary effects (eg, osmotic, chemical, immunological, mechanical or neuroendocrine) and secondary effects (eg, fermentation by-products, alterations in intraluminal pH or effects on the gut microbiome).
“There are multiple mechanisms by which food may trigger symptoms in IBS, including primary effects (eg, osmotic, chemical, immunological, mechanical or neuroendocrine) and secondary effects (eg, fermentation by-products, alterations in intraluminal pH or effects on the gut microbiome).193 194”
From British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the management of irritable bowel syndrome (2021) · cites this paper as [194]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 75 · Cited by 64
- Authors
- Moayyedi, P., Simrén, M., & Bercik, P.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Moayyedi, Paul
- Venue
- Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
- Published
- 2020-03-02
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 406-413
- ISSN
- 1759-5045 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-5053
- OpenAlex
- W3010582389
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 75
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 2.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (RN279389 – 358033)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Infant Health and Development
- Keywords
- irritable bowel syndrome, elimination diet, gluten-free diet, low FODMAP diet, randomized controlled trials, control group design, blinding, gut microbiota, intestinal inflammation
- MeSH terms
- Diet, Humans, 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.
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