You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Is CBT the dominant non-drug IBS treatment? The rise of dietary therapies
  1. Anupam Rej,
  2. Rachel Louise Buckle,
  3. Christian Charles Shaw,
  4. Nick Trott,
  5. Imran Aziz,
  6. David S Sanders
  1. Academic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Anupam Rej, Academic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK; anupam.rej{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321658

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with interest the editorial by Lackner and Jaccard, which discusses the largest cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) trial for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) to date.1 2 The study by Everitt et al highlights the superiority of both web-based and telephone delivered CBT in comparison to usual treatment for individuals with IBS.2 In light of these results, Lackner nd Jaccard suggest that CBT is the dominant non-drug IBS treatment.1 We would disagree with this statement, and wish to highlight the benefit of dietary therapies to manage patients with IBS.

    Traditional dietary advice is the first-line dietary intervention for individuals with IBS, as recommended by national guidelines, but is based …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AR, RLB, CCS, NT, IA and DSS drafted the article. All authors approved the final article.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests DSS receives an educational grant from Schaer (a gluten‐free food manufacturer).

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.