You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Neurogastroenterology
Original research
Efficacy of psychological therapies for irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and network meta-analysis
  1. Christopher J Black1,2,
  2. Elyse R Thakur3,4,
  3. Lesley A Houghton2,
  4. Eamonn M M Quigley5,
  5. Paul Moayyedi6,
  6. Alexander C Ford1,2
  1. 1Leeds Gastroenterology Institute, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
  2. 2Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St. James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
  3. 3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
  4. 4Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
  5. 5Lynda K and David M Underwood Center for Digestive Disorders, Houston Methodist Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College, Houston, Texas, USA
  6. 6Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Professor Alexander C Ford, Leeds Gastroenterology Institute, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK; alexf12399{at}yahoo.com

Abstract

Objectives National guidelines for the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) recommend that psychological therapies should be considered, but their relative efficacy is unknown, because there have been few head-to-head trials. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to try to resolve this uncertainty.

Design We searched the medical literature through January 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing efficacy of psychological therapies for adults with IBS, compared with each other, or a control intervention. Trials reported a dichotomous assessment of symptom status after completion of therapy. We pooled data using a random effects model. Efficacy was reported as a pooled relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic, with a 95% CI to summarise efficacy of each comparison tested, and ranked by therapy according to P score.

Results We identified 41 eligible RCTs, containing 4072 participants. After completion of therapy, the psychological interventions with the largest numbers of trials, and patients recruited, demonstrating efficacy included self-administered or minimal contact cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, P score 0.66), face-to-face CBT (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80, P score 0.65) and gut-directed hypnotherapy (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.91, P score 0.57). After completion of therapy, among trials recruiting only patients with refractory symptoms, group CBT and gut-directed hypnotherapy were more efficacious than either education and/or support or routine care, and CBT via the telephone, contingency management, CBT via the internet and dynamic psychotherapy were all superior to routine care. Risk of bias of trials was high, with evidence of funnel plot asymmetry; the efficacy of psychological therapies is therefore likely to have been overestimated.

Conclusions Several psychological therapies are efficacious for IBS, although none were superior to another. CBT-based interventions and gut-directed hypnotherapy had the largest evidence base and were the most efficacious long term.

Trial registration number The study protocol was published on the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number CRD 42020163246).

  • abdominal pain
  • diarrhoea
  • constipation
  • irritable bowel syndrome

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321191

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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • CJB and ERT are joint first authors.

    • Contributors Guarantor: ACF is guarantor. He accepts full responsibility for the work and the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.Specific author contributions: Study concept and design: CJB, ERT, LAH, EMMQ, PM and ACF conceived and drafted the study. CJB, ERT, PM and ACF analysed, and interpreted the data. ACF and ERT drafted the manuscript. All authors have approved the final draft of the manuscript. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

    • 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 None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval Ethical approval was not required.

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

    • Data availability statement No data are available.