Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 326

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic review: the role of different types of fibre in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

Bijkerk, C. J., Muris, J. W. M., Knottnerus, J. A., Hoes, A. W., De Wit, N. J.·2004·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
DOI 10.1111/j.0269-2813.2004.01862.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: Background : Both high‐fibre dietary advice and the prescription of fibre as a bulking agent are very common in primary and secondary care management of irritable bowel syndrome. Irritable bowel syndrome patients with constipation may have delayed intestinal transit. Therefore, fibres that accelerate intestinal transit may be beneficial in these patients. The uncertain benefits reported in several clinical studies, however, have led us to reappraise the value of fibre in irritable bowel syndrome management. Aim : To quantify the effect of different types of fibre on global and symptom relief from irritable bowel syndrome. Methods : Using a structured literature search in MEDLINE (1966–2002), we selected randomized controlled trials involving irritable bowel syndrome patients treated with fibre. Analyses were performed for the total group and for trials using soluble and insoluble fibre separately. Results : Seventeen studies were included in the analysis. None investigated primary care irritable bowel syndrome patients. Fibre, in general, was effective in the relief of global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms [relative risk, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19–1.50]. Irritable bowel syndrome patients with constipation may receive benefit from fibre treatment (relative risk, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.21–2.02), but there was no evidence that fibre was effective in the relief of abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome. Soluble and insoluble fibre, separately, had different effects on global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Soluble fibre (psyllium, ispaghula, calcium polycarbophil) showed significant improvement (relative risk, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.35–1.78), whereas insoluble fibre (corn, wheat bran), in some cases, worsened the clinical outcome, but there was no significant difference compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72–1.11). Conclusions : The benefits of fibre in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome are marginal for global irritable bowel syndrome symptom improvement and irritable bowel syndrome‐related constipation. Soluble and insoluble fibres have different effects on global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. Indeed, in some cases, insoluble fibres may worsen the clinical outcome. Future clinical studies evaluating the effect and tolerability of fibre therapy are needed in primary care.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0269-2813.2004.01862.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Bijkerk, C. J., Muris, J. W. M., Knottnerus, J. A., Hoes, A. W., & De Wit, N. J.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-01-30
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
245-251
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
DOI
10.1111/j.0269-2813.2004.01862.x
OpenAlex
W2029108089
Cited by
326
References
5
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.