↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Efficacy of a Gluten-Free Diet and a Low FODMAPs Diet in Treating Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Gastroenterology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
227 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
376 Mendeley
Title
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Efficacy of a Gluten-Free Diet and a Low FODMAPs Diet in Treating Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Published in
American Journal of Gastroenterology, July 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41395-018-0195-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Dionne, Alexander C. Ford, Yuhong Yuan, William D. Chey, Brian E. Lacy, Yuri A. Saito, Eamonn M. M. Quigley, Paul Moayyedi

Abstract

Dietary triggers such as gluten and highly fermentable oligo-, di- and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP)-containing foods have been associated with worsening irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms. However, the true impact of dietary restriction on IBS symptoms has remained unclear. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of exclusion diets (we focused on low FODMAP and gluten-free diets (GFD)) in IBS. We conducted a search of the literature using the electronic databases MEDLINE (1946 to November 2017), EMBASE (1974 to November 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (November 2017), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2005 to November, 2017) for RCTs of exclusion diets in IBS. Two independent reviewers screened citations and a third reviewer resolved disagreement. Two independent reviewers performed eligibility assessment and data abstraction. For inclusion, RCTs that evaluated an exclusion diet versus an alternative or usual diet and assessed improvement in either global IBS symptoms or abdominal pain were required. Data were synthesized as relative risk of symptoms remaining using a random effects model. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology. A total of 1726 citations were identified. After full-text screening a total of nine studies were eligible for the systematic review. There were two RCTs of a GFD, involving 111 participants. Both selected patients who responded to a GFD and then randomized them to continue the diet or have the diet "spiked" with gluten. A GFD was associated with reduced global symptoms compared with a control diet (RR = 0.42; 95% CI 0.11 to 1.55; I2 = 88%), although this was not statistically significant. There were seven RCTs comparing a low FODMAP diet with various control interventions in 397 participants. A low FODMAP diet was associated with reduced global symptoms compared with control interventions (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; I2 = 25%). The three RCTS that compared low FODMAP diet with rigorous control diets had the least heterogeneity between studies, but also the least magnitude of effect. The overall quality of the data was "very low" according to GRADE criteria. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a GFD to reduce IBS symptoms. There is very low quality evidence that a low FODMAP diet is effective in reducing symptoms in IBS patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 181 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 376 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 376 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 56 15%
Student > Master 50 13%
Other 30 8%
Researcher 18 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 5%
Other 55 15%
Unknown 149 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 64 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Sports and Recreations 5 1%
Other 37 10%
Unknown 164 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 177. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2023.
All research outputs
#227,835
of 25,455,127 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Gastroenterology
#113
of 5,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,747
of 341,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Gastroenterology
#3
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,455,127 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.