Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders seen by clinicians in both primary and secondary care. Since publication of the last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline in 2007, substantial advances have been made in understanding its complex pathophysiology, resulting in its re-classification as a disorder of gut-brain interaction, rather than a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Moreover, there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning the diagnosis, investigation and management of IBS. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based management of patients. One of the strengths of this guideline is that the recommendations for treatment are based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of trial-based and network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of dietary, pharmacological and psychological therapies in treating IBS. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, summarising both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, this guideline identifies novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need for future research.

Objectives: Few studies have examined the effects of applying the Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) vs the previous standard, the Rome III criteria. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of individuals who self-identify as having IBS to examine this issue. Methods: We collected complete demographic, symptom, mood, and psychological health data from 1375 adults who self-identified as having IBS, but were not recruited from a referral population. We applied the Rome III and the Rome IV criteria simultaneously to 5 of 25

OBJECTIVES:Prucalopride is effective at alleviating symptoms of chronic constipation in women. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of 12 weeks of prucalopride treatment compared with placebo in men with chronic constipation.METHODS:This was a multicenter, stratified, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01147926). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a mean of three or more spontaneous complete bowel movements (SCBMs) per week across the treatment period. Efficacy end points were assessed using daily electronic diaries, global assessment of the severity of constipation and efficacy of treatment, and Patient Assessment of Constipation—Symptoms (PAC-SYM) and Patient Assessment of Constipation—Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaires.RESULTS:In total, 374 patients were enrolled in the study. Significantly more patients achieved a mean of three or more SCBMs per week in the prucalopride group (37.9%) than in the placebo group (17.7%, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients rating their constipation treatment as “quite a bit” to “extremely” effective at the final on-treatment visit was 46.7 and 30.4% in the prucalopride and placebo groups, respectively. The difference between treatment groups was statistically significant (P<0.0001). The proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 1 point in PAC-QOL satisfaction subscale score was 52.7 and 38.8% in the prucalopride and placebo groups, respectively (P=0.0035). Prucalopride had a good safety profile and was well tolerated.CONCLUSIONS:Prucalopride is effective, has a good safety profile, and is well tolerated for the treatment of men with chronic constipation.

No abstract

Professional-identity and self-concept appear to have an impact on practice in a research delivery role. Further research should explore these issues further, to enlighten the basis on which such feelings are positioned and to work towards practical solutions.