A meta-analysis and systematic review of the comorbidity between irritable bowel syndrome and bipolar disorder

Abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Systematic assessment of environmental risk factors for bipolar disorder: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

“…One study of the 65 articles selected for full‐text review was excluded because a more recent publication had re‐analysed the data . Seven of the 16 eligible articles had a quantitative synthesis providing a summary estimate of the association of the risk factor and BD . Individual study data were available for six publications .…”

“…Seven of the 16 eligible articles had a quantitative synthesis providing a summary estimate of the association of the risk factor and BD . Individual study data were available for six publications . Three articles reported prevalence rates of BD in medical conditions, namely endometriosis, fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis .…”

“…Meta‐analyses provided evidence for seven environmental factors, and included 54 studies in total (median=8; interquartile range [IQR]=5−10). Three of the factors were medical comorbidities (asthma, irritable bowel syndrome [IBS] and obesity), and one was seropositivity for a typical perinatal pathogen ( T. gondii ). The remaining three were childhood adversity, head injury, and exposure to obstetric complications .…”

“…Six (85.7%) of seven meta‐analyses reported effects that were significant at a nominal P value of .05. Four (57.1%) were significant at P values <.001 under random effects modelling (Table ): asthma, childhood adversity, IBS, and obesity . The 95% prediction interval rule under random‐effects modelling did not include the null value only in the meta‐analysis of IBS .…”

“…Four (57.1%) were significant at P values <.001 under random effects modelling (Table ): asthma, childhood adversity, IBS, and obesity . The 95% prediction interval rule under random‐effects modelling did not include the null value only in the meta‐analysis of IBS . The meta‐analysis that investigated the prevalence of BD in individuals with asthma did not provide information with which to calculate prediction intervals.…”