Suppr超能文献

比较益生菌和药物干预在肠易激综合征中的作用:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

Comparing probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

机构信息

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Athena Institute, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Örebro University, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Fakultetsgatan 1, 70182 Örebro, Sweden.

出版信息

Benef Microbes. 2022 Aug 3;13(3):183-194. doi: 10.3920/BM2021.0123. Epub 2022 Jul 18.

Abstract

Clinical decisions made by health professionals to recommend either drug or probiotic interventions for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) should be supported by proper knowledge of the efficacy rates of both types of interventions. In this article, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of both probiotic- and drug interventions in IBS. Medline was searched between January 2015 - January 2021. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) recruiting participants > 18 years old with IBS and examining the effect of probiotics or drugs were eligible for inclusion. The data of the primary outcome, i.e. the persistence of IBS symptoms (dichotomous symptom data), were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes, abdominal pain- and bloating scores (continuous data), were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. The search identified 269 citations of which 32 RCTs were eligible. Our meta-analysis indicated that both probiotic and drug interventions are able to improve the persistence of IBS symptoms (RR 0.60 [0.51; 0.92] versus 0.87 [0.81; 0.92], respectively) and abdominal pain scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35 [-0.56; -0.14] versus -0.10 [-0.20; 0.00], respectively). However, determining the overall efficacy of both intervention types is inherently complex and such results should be interpreted with care, due to the large diversity of probiotic- and drug types and doses, which is also complicated by variety in IBS subtypes. Hence, as a first step, more large scale randomised double blind placebo-controlled trials focussing on a specific IBS subtype targeted with specific probiotic strains or specific pharmaceutical modalities should be executed, enabling a more proper comparison between trials.

摘要

临床医生在决定推荐药物或益生菌干预治疗肠易激综合征(IBS)时,应充分了解这两种干预方式的疗效。本文通过系统综述和荟萃分析,研究益生菌和药物干预治疗 IBS 的疗效。检索了 2015 年 1 月至 2021 年 1 月的 Medline 数据库。纳入了招募年龄大于 18 岁的 IBS 患者,评估益生菌或药物疗效的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结局为 IBS 症状的持续性(二分类症状数据),采用相对危险度(RR)及 95%置信区间(CI)表示;次要结局为腹痛和腹胀评分(连续数据),采用标准化均数差(SMD)及 95%CI 表示。共检索到 269 篇文献,其中 32 篇 RCT 符合纳入标准。荟萃分析结果表明,益生菌和药物干预均能改善 IBS 症状的持续性(RR 0.60 [0.51; 0.92]与 0.87 [0.81; 0.92])和腹痛评分(SMD -0.35 [-0.56; -0.14]与 -0.10 [-0.20; 0.00])。然而,由于益生菌和药物的种类和剂量差异很大,且 IBS 亚型也存在差异,因此两种干预方式的总体疗效非常复杂,需要谨慎解释。因此,首先应开展更多大规模的随机双盲安慰剂对照试验,针对特定的 IBS 亚型,采用特定的益生菌菌株或特定的药物治疗方式,以便在试验之间进行更恰当的比较。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验