2022
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15883
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Vitamin D supplementation for irritable bowel syndrome: Concerns about the meta‐analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

2
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…To clarify, they miss-extracted the data of Williams et al [31] by changing the values of IBS-Qol outcome numbers from negative to positive changing the direction of the effect of the Williams et al [31] study and their pooled analysis. We clarified the methodological flaws of Chong et al [55] in our recently published editorial [59]. In another recent review by Haung et al [60], vitamin D was effective in improving IBS-SSS which is also contradictory to our findings.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…To clarify, they miss-extracted the data of Williams et al [31] by changing the values of IBS-Qol outcome numbers from negative to positive changing the direction of the effect of the Williams et al [31] study and their pooled analysis. We clarified the methodological flaws of Chong et al [55] in our recently published editorial [59]. In another recent review by Haung et al [60], vitamin D was effective in improving IBS-SSS which is also contradictory to our findings.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 52%
“…To clarify, a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis that included the previously mentioned missed studies yielded different findings regarding the IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS) [5]. Another review that also included the missed article yielded consistent IBS-SSS findings [6]; however, its results have been under debate due to statistical concerns [7]. In addition, the narrow search strategy that leads to missing multiple key publications in the pooled analysis is a serious limitation of systematic reviews that have been previously emphasized [8,9].…”
Section: Dear Editormentioning
confidence: 99%