The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review with meta‐analysis: rifaximin is effective and safe for the treatment of small intestine bacterial overgrowth
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Background: Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is a heterogeneous syndrome, characterised by an increased number and/or abnormal type of bacteria in the small bowel. Over the past decades, rifaximin has gained popularity for this indication despite its use is not evidence based. Aim: To perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to summarise evidence about the efficacy and safety of rifaximin to eradicate SIBO in adult patients. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CCRCT, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 16, 2015 for RCT s and observational studies. Furthermore, abstract books of major European, American and Asian gastroenterological meetings were also examined. Results: Thirty‐two studies involving 1331 patients were included. The overall eradication rate according to intention‐to‐treat analysis was 70.8% (95% CI: 61.4–78.2; I2 = 89.4%) and to per protocol analysis 72.9% (95% CI: 65.5–79.8; I2 = 87.5%). Meta‐regression identified three covariates (drug dose, study design and co‐therapy) independently associated with an increased eradication rate. The overall rate of adverse events was 4.6% (95% CI: 2.3–7.5; I2 = 63.6%). In the subset of studies (n= 10) allowing the analysis, improvement or resolution of symptoms in patients with eradicated SIBO was found to be 67.7% (95% CI: 44.7–86.9; I2 = 91.3%). Conclusions: Rifaximin treatment seems to be effective and safe for the treatment of SIBO. However, the quality of the available studies is generally poor. Well‐designed RCT s are needed to substantiate these findings and to establish the optimal regimen.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 · Cited by 7,709
Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs
Concato, J., Shah, N., & Horwitz, R. I. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422507 · Cited by 3,563
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
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309 · cited 1×
“low risk of bias, and all had problems with concealment of allocation and blinding.(90) Furthermore, for the sake of homogeneity, it was possible to pool the results of only two RCTs.”
BackgroundA comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials.
Benson, K., & Hartz, A. J. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422506 · Cited by 2,347
The gut microbiota and host health: a new clinical frontier
Marchesi, J. R., Adams, D. H., Fava, F., Hermes, G. D. A., Hirschfield, G. M., Hold, G., Quraishi, M. N., Kinross, J., Smidt, H., Tuohy, K. M., et al. (2016) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309990 · Cited by 2,302
Cited by
A review of studies on gut microbiota and levodopa metabolism
Zhong, Z., Ye, M., & Yan, F. (2023) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1046910 · Cited by 31
Is small intestinal bacterial overgrowth involved in the pathogenesis of functional dyspepsia?
Tziatzios, G., Giamarellos-Bourboulis, E. J., Papanikolaou, I. S., Pimentel, M., Dimitriadis, G. D., & Triantafyllou, K. (2017) · Medical Hypotheses · doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2017.07.005 · Cited by 30
Aetiology, diagnosis and management of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth
Ahmed, J. F., Padam, P., & Ruban, A. (2023) · Frontline Gastroenterology · doi:10.1136/flgastro-2022-102163 · Cited by 28
Chronic, Noninfectious Diarrhea: A Review
Singh, P., Lee, A., Sheth, N. M., & Chey, W. D. (2026) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2026.0872 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Gatta, L., & Scarpignato, C.
- Venue
- Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-01-12
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 604-616
- ISSN
- 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2036
- OpenAlex
- W2578484558
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 3.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review with meta‐analysis: rifaximin is effective and safe for the treatment of small intestine bacterial overgrowth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/apt.13928
- The paper
- Gatta, L., & Scarpignato, C. (2017). Systematic review with meta‐analysis: rifaximin is effective and safe for the treatment of small intestine bacterial overgrowth. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.13928
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.
