Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comprehensive review analyzes various findings on diagnosis and treatment of IBS, indicating a need for multifaceted management.
Introduction and purpose: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic intestinal disorder and a prevalent disorder of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) that significantly impairs daily functioning and quality of life. While the exact pathophysiology is not fully understood, a multifactorial etiology involving biological, genetic, and psychological influences is postulated. This review aims to condense findings from various studies into a single, accessible overview, emphasizing practical strategies for diagnosis and treatment. Materials and methods: This review analyzed 34 articles published between 1973 and 2026, identified through an extensive PubMed search. The timeframe bridges historical clinical accounts with contemporary research. The study focused on synthesizing data related to diagnostic protocols and current treatment strategies. Description of the state of knowledge: Diagnosis currently utilizes the 2016 Rome IV criteria, which prioritize recurrent abdominal pain associated with changes in bowel frequency or stool consistency. IBS is categorized into four subtypes based on the Bristol Stool Form Scale: IBS-C, IBS-D, IBS-M, and IBS-U. Pathophysiological factors include genetic mutations, and psychological distress, which affects up to 80% of patients. Management involves lifestyle changes like increased physical activity, dietary modifications such as the Low FODMAP diet, and psychological therapies including specialised CBT and hypnotherapy. Pharmacotherapy is tailored to the clinical subtype, utilizing antispasmodics, laxatives, and antidepressants. Conclusions: IBS management remains challenging due to high individual variability and frequent relapses. Sustained remission requires a multidisciplinary strategy addressing both somatic manifestations and the significant psychological burden of the disorder.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Szklarski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: