Evidence Hub

Efficacy of interventions for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain-not otherwise specified, and abdominal migraine in children: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

V. Sinopoulou, Jip Groen, Morris Gordon, E. Mougey, J. Franciosi, T. de Meij, M. Tabbers, M. Benninga

The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2025

7,226 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many treatments for abdominal pain-related disorders of gut-brain interaction (AP-DGBI) in children have been studied. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of all known treatment options for paediatric AP-DGBI.

METHODS

For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to Jan 16, 2025, for published randomised controlled trials. We included trials of any treatment for AP-DGBIs (irritable bowel syndrome, functional abdominal pain-not otherwise specified, and abdominal migraine, excluding functional dyspepsia) in children aged 4-18 years. We excluded randomised controlled trials that solely included children with functional dyspepsia, but we included studies in which children with functional dyspepsia were included alongside children with the other AP-DGBI diagnoses and outcome data could not be separated. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed in duplicate. The primary outcome for this network meta-analysis was author-defined treatment success. Network meta-analysis methodology was used within a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis and outcomes were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Clinical relevance of effect sizes was interpreted according to consensus definitions.

FINDINGS

Of 19 337 records identified through the database search, 155 records representing 91 original randomised controlled…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,226 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free