SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
Efficacy of Internet-Based Self-Help Interventions for Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder that reduces quality of life and causes a heavy medical burden. Internet-based self-help interventions are flexible and scalable, showing potential for IBS symptom improvement, but relevant evidence is fragmented and lacks systematic review. Objective: This systematic review aimed to comprehensively evaluate the effects of internet-based self-help interventions on symptom severity, quality of life, and visceral sensitivity, as well as comorbid depressive and anxiety symptoms, in individuals with IBS. Methods: Only randomized controlled trials evaluating internet-based self-help interventions for individuals with IBS were included. A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and 4 Chinese databases on June 25, 2025, with an updated search on March 9, 2026. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-analyses were performed with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman-adjusted random-effects model. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria. Results: A total of 17 randomized controlled trials from 7 countries were included, involving 2289 participants (predominantly female). Compared with control groups, internet-based self-help interventions were associated with a statistically significant improvement in IBS symptom severity (SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.26, 95% prediction interval [PI] -1.46 to 0.42), quality of life (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.90, 95% PI -0.41 to 1.54), visceral sensitivity (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.21, 95% PI -1.43 to 0.33), and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.01, 95% PI -0.27 to -0.01). However, no statistically significant improvement was observed in anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.27, 95% PI -0.78 to 0.71). The certainty of evidence was rated as moderate to very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: This review synthesizes the latest evidence on internet-based self-help interventions for individuals with IBS disease-specific and comorbid psychological symptoms. It stands out by encompassing a diverse range of such interventions and incorporating visceral sensitivity as a key outcome. In doing so, it establishes a more comprehensive multi-outcome evidence base for IBS digital interventions, advancing the field by clarifying the potential of these interventions as viable alternatives to conventional treatments. For real-world practice, these findings can inform targeted strategies for primary care and telemedicine platforms, especially in resource-limited regions. However, this review is limited by moderate bias risk, high heterogeneity, and moderate to very low GRADE evidence certainty. A wide 95% PI suggests that effect variability is linked to contextual and population factors, so findings should be interpreted cautiously. Future research should prioritize technical support, patients' digital health literacy, and standardized intervention protocols to further validate clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.