Background: Recent studies have shown that bile acids are essential in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) pathology, and cholecystectomy has direct effects on bile acid metabolism. However, whether cholecystectomy increases the risk of IBS remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the association between cholecystectomy and IBS risk in the UK Biobank (UKB). Methods: This study is a prospective analysis of 413,472 participants who were free of IBS, inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, or common benign digestive tract diseases. We identified incidents of IBS through self-reporting or links to primary healthcare and hospitalization data. We evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, health behaviours, comorbidities, and medications. Results: During a median follow-up period of 12.7 years, we observed 15,503 new cases of IBS. Participants with a history of cholecystectomy had a 46% higher risk of IBS than those without (HR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.32–1.60), and further subtype analysis showed that the risk of IBS with diarrhoea was significantly higher than the risk of IBS without diarrhoea (HR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.30–2.25 vs. HR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.28–1.58). The overall covariate-adjusted HRs for IBS were similar between the group with both cholecystectomy and gallstones (HR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.32–1.58) and the group with cholecystectomy without gallstones (HR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.36–1.67) when the group without both cholecystectomy and gallstones was used as a reference. The overall covariate-adjusted HR was not significantly different in the group without cholecystectomy with gallstones (HR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.95–1.47). The positive association of cholecystectomy with IBS risk did not change when stratifying the data based on age, sex, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, healthy diet, quality sleep, physical activity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, mental illness, NSAID intake, or acid inhibitor intake. Sensitivity analyses, including propensity score matching analysis and lagging the exposure for two or four years, indicated that the effects were robust. Conclusion: Cholecystectomy was associated with a higher risk of IBS, especially IBS with diarrhoea. Additional prospective randomized controlled and experimental studies are warranted to further validate the association and to explore the relevant biological mechanisms.

Purpose Accumulating evidence showed that probiotics therapy might be effective in treating diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics therapy for the treatment of IBS-D. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search in eight electronic databases, and gray literature from inception to August 4, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics therapy for the treatment of IBS-D were included and the quality was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook version 5.1.0. RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform the meta-analysis on the outcomes of IBS-D symptoms, abdominal pain, quality of life, and abdominal distension. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results Ten RCTs evaluating 943 patients were identified. Only one study had unclear risk of bias, while nine studies had a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared to the placebo, probiotics therapy significantly decreased the score of IBS-D symptoms (SMD = - 0.55, 95% CI: [- 0.83, - 0.27], P < 0.05), abdominal pain (SMD = - 0.43, 95% CI: [- 0.57, - 0.29], P < 0.05), and abdominal distension (SMD = - 0.45, 95%CI: [- 0.81, - 0.09], P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the quality of life. However, all the certainty of evidence was very low. Conclusion Very low certainty evidence showed that probiotics might be an effective treatment for improving the IBS-D symptoms, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension, in adult IBS-D patients. However, these conclusions should be supported by high-quality evidence.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of probiotics in the treatment of constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C), we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotic care versus placebos for patients with IBS-C in five comprehensive databases (March 2022). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. RevMan 5.3 was used to perform a meta-analysis on stool consistency, abdominal pain, bloating, quality of life (QoL), fecal Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus counts, and adverse events. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Ten RCTs involving 757 patients were included. Only three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis results show that, compared to the placebo, probiotics significantly improved stool consistency (MD = 0.72, 95% CI (0.18, 1.26), p 0.05). The low-to-very low certainty evidence suggests that probiotics might improve the stool consistency of patients with IBS-C and increase the number of Bifidobacteria and Lactobacilli in feces with good safety. However, more high-quality studies with large samples are needed to verify the findings.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the quality of guidelines on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and identify concordance of different commendations. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was undertaken from inception to May 2018. Two reviewers independently selected the titles and abstracts. The guidelines included were assessed using the AGREE II instrument. The consistency of evaluations was calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients with 95% CI. Results: From 994 records, 7 guidelines were included. Most of guidelines got a moderate score of AGREE II. The highest median scores were achieved for scope and purpose and clarity and presentation (69.4%), while the lowest median scores across guidelines were for applicability (50.0%). Most of the nonpharmacologic management recommendations for IBS were similar. However, there also existed some differences on pharmacologic between different guidelines. Conclusions: The guidelines on IBS varied in quality and there were discrepancies about recommendations and recommendation grades. There is some space to improvement the quality of methodological rigor in development and reporting within clinical guidelines.