Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 95Curcumin's Biomedical ApplicationsGastrointestinal motility and disordersSaffron Plant Research Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 39 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

A Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Use of Curcumin for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)

Open access

Abstract

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains a prevalent and difficult-to-manage gastrointestinal condition. There is growing interest in the use of traditional medicine to manage IBS. In particular, curcumin, a biologically active phytochemical, has demonstrated anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant properties and mucosal protective effects in rat models of colitis. This meta-analysis thus aimed to investigate the hypothesis that curcumin improves IBS symptoms. Using the keywords (curcumin OR turmeric OR Indian saffron OR diferuloylmethane OR curcuminoid) AND (irritable bowel syndrome OR IBS), a preliminary search on the PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases yielded 1080 papers published in English between 1 January 1988 and 1 May 2018. Five randomized, controlled trials were systematically reviewed and 3 were included in the final meta-analysis. Random-effects meta-analysis based on three studies and 326 patients found curcumin to have a beneficial albeit not statistically significant effect on IBS symptoms (pooled standardized mean difference from baseline IBS severity rating −0.466, 95% CI: −1.113 to 0.182, p = 0.158). This is the first meta-analysis to examine the use of curcumin in IBS. With its unique anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory activities and ability to modulate gut microbiota, curcumin is a potentially useful addition to our armamentarium of agents for IBS. It also appears safe and well-tolerated, with no adverse events reported in the available trials. However, current findings are based on a considerably limited evidence base with marked heterogeneity. More robust clinical trials involving a standardized curcumin preparation and larger sample sizes should be encouraged.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

This first meta-analysis of curcumin for IBS pooled three randomized controlled trials and found a beneficial but non-significant effect on IBS symptoms compared with placebo. Curcumin appeared safe and well tolerated, but the evidence base was limited and heterogeneous.

Key findings

  • In the random-effects meta-analysis of 3 studies and 326 patients, curcumin produced a pooled standardized mean difference from baseline IBS severity rating of −0.466 (95% CI: −1.113 to 0.182, p = 0.158), a beneficial but not statistically significant effect.
  • Heterogeneity was high (I² = 85.22%).
  • Of the 5 clinical trials reviewed, 3 reported positive and significant effects for curcumin-containing products, while 2 found no significant effects compared with placebo and advised against curcumin monotherapy.
  • No adverse events were reported in any of the trials reviewed; the paper notes curcumin is generally safe, with occasional reports of slight giddiness, nausea, and diarrhoea, and possible interactions with anticoagulants at higher doses.

Methods

  • Systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using curcumin/turmeric terms AND IBS terms yielded 1080 papers published in English between 1 January 1988 and 1 May 2018; grey literature was searched via Google.
  • Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trial, curcumin as active intervention, participants with IBS, and available efficacy outcome measures; non-placebo-controlled trials were excluded. Five studies were systematically reviewed and 3 were included in the final meta-analysis.
  • The primary outcome was the standardized mean difference for mean reduction in IBS symptoms from baseline with curcumin, using per-protocol analysis; estimates were pooled with a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed with I² and Cochran’s Q.

Limitations

  • Stated: only three studies were available, so funnel plot and sensitivity analyses were not feasible; inter-study variability in curcumin formulation and IBS diagnosis likely contributed to heterogeneity; curcumin was mixed with at least one other therapeutic or potentially therapeutic material in two analyzed trials, making a curcumin-attributable SMD difficult to quantify; longer follow-up is needed because IBS is chronic and relapsing, and current studies ranged only from 8 to 18 weeks.
  • Stated: more robust clinical trials involving a standardized curcumin preparation and larger sample sizes are warranted.
  • Evident from the text: the small evidence base, marked heterogeneity, and co-interventions limit confidence in the pooled estimate and in attributing any benefit specifically to curcumin.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/jcm7100298

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram showing the studies identified during the literature search and abstraction process.
Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram showing the studies identified during the literature search and abstraction process.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Forest plot showing overall standardized mean difference (SMD) for change in baseline IBS severity rating.
Figure 2 Forest plot showing overall standardized mean difference (SMD) for change in baseline IBS severity rating.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 21 Not checked · 16 Own results and interpretations

10 more claims

Create a free account to see all 37 claims and to verify the 39 references still open.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 17
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 7

Create a free account to see these claims.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 95

Metadata

Authors
Ng, Q., Soh, A., Loke, W., Venkatanarayanan, N., Lim, D., & Yeo, W.-S.
Affiliations
  • National University Hospital (SG)
  • MOH Holdings (SG)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Institute of Mental Health (SG)
Corresponding author
Ng, Qin
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-09-22
Volume
7
Issue
10
Pages
298
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2892282120
Cited by
95
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Curcumin's Biomedical Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Saffron Plant Research Studies
Keywords
curcumin, irritable bowel syndrome, turmeric, phytochemicals, anti-inflammatory activity, antioxidant activity, gut microbiota, IBS symptom severity, traditional medicine, safety and tolerability

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

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.