Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

British Dietetic Association systematic review and evidence‐based practice guidelines for the dietary management of irritable bowel syndrome in adults (2016 update)

McKenzie, Y. A., Bowyer, R. K., Leach, H., Gulia, P., Horobin, J., O'Sullivan, N. A., Pettitt, C., Reeves, L. B., Seamark, L., Williams, M., Thompson, J., Lomer, M. C. E., (IBS Dietetic Guideline Review Group on behalf of Gastroenterology Specialist Group of the British Dietetic Association)·2016·Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics

Abstract

Background: The first British Dietetic Association (BDA) guidelines for the dietary management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in adults were published in 2012. Subsequently, there has been a wealth of new research. The aim of this work was to systematically review the evidence for the role of diet in the management of IBS and to update the guidelines. Methods: Twelve questions relating to diet and IBS were defined based on review of the previous guideline questions, current evidence and clinical practice. Chosen topics were on healthy eating and lifestyle (alcohol, caffeine, spicy food, elimination diets, fat and fluid intakes and dietary habits), milk and dairy, dietary fibre, fermentable carbohydrates, gluten, probiotics and elimination diets/food hypersensitivity. Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science up to October 2015. Studies were assessed independently in duplicate using risk of bias tools specific to each included study based on inclusion and exclusion criteria for each question. National Health and Medical Research Council grading evidence levels were used to develop evidence statements and recommendations, in accordance with Practice‐based Evidence in Nutrition Global protocol used by the BDA. Results: Eighty‐six studies were critically appraised to generate 46 evidence statements, 15 clinical recommendations and four research recommendations. The IBS dietary algorithm was simplified to first‐line (healthy eating, provided by any healthcare professional) and second‐line [low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) to be provided by dietitian] dietary advice. Conclusions: These guidelines provide updated comprehensive evidence‐based details to achieve the successful dietary management of IBS in adults.

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/jhn.12385

Cites

34 of 34 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

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
McKenzie, Y. A., Bowyer, R. K., Leach, H., Gulia, P., Horobin, J., O'Sullivan, N. A., Pettitt, C., Reeves, L. B., Seamark, L., Williams, M., Thompson, J., Lomer, M. C. E., & (IBS Dietetic Guideline Review Group on behalf of Gastroenterology Specialist Group of the British Dietetic Association)
Venue
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06-08
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
549-575
ISSN
  • 0952-3871 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-277X
OpenAlex
W2419592887
Cited by
353
References
34
FWCI
5.16
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.