Effectiveness of inulin intake on indicators of chronic constipation; a meta-analysis of controlled randomized clinical trials

Background: Constipation is an intestinal dysfunction. Prebiotics, such as inulin, can improve bowel function by positively influencing intestinal biota. Aim: To analyze the scientific evidence for the role of inulin in improving bowel function in patients with chronic constipation. Methods: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials was conducted, grounded on a literature search for the period 1995-2013 (descriptors: inulin & constipation) on PubMed, ScieLo and Central Trials Register Cochrane databases. A total of 24 articles were found, 5 of them were selected for this meta-analysis, involving 252 subjects (experimental group: n = 144, control group: n = 108). The quality of the studies was assessed using the Jadad scale. Results: We found a significant overall effect of inulin on stool frequency (DEM = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.04, 1.34), stool consistency (Bristol scale) (DEM = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.45), transit time (DEM = -0.57, 95% CI: -0.99, -0.15) and hardness of stool (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.70). Pain and bloating do not improve with inulin intake. Conclusions: inulin intake has a positive effect on bowel function.

Sensitivity and specificity of the Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire in diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Introduction: Gastrointestinal Short Form Questionnaire (GSFQ) is a questionnaire for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) diagnosis, with a version in Spanish language, not yet compared to an objective test. Aims: To establish GSFQ diagnostic performance against 24-hour pH monitoring carried out in two tertiary care hospitals. Methods: Consecutive adult patients with typical GERD symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation) referred for pH monitoring fulfilled the GSFQ (score range 0-30, proportional to probability of GERD). Diagnosis of GERD was established when acid exposure time in distal esophagus was superior to 4.5% or symptom association probability was greater than 95%. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated and best cut-off score determined, with corresponding sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LR) (95% confidence interval for each). Results: One hundred and fifty-two patients were included (59.9% women, age 47.9 ± 13.9; 97.4% heartburn; 71.3% regurgitation). pH monitoring was abnormal in 65.8%. Mean GSFQ score was 11.2 ± 6. Area under ROC was 56.5% (47.0-65.9%). Optimal cut-off score was 13 or greater: sensitivity 40% (30.3-50.3%), specificity 71.2% (56.9-82.9%), positive LR 1.39 (0.85-2.26) and negative LR 0.84 (0.67-1.07). Exclusion of questions 1 and 3 of the original GSFQ, easily interpreted as referred to dyspepsia and not GERD, improved only marginally the diagnostic performance: AUROC 59.1%. Conclusion: The GSFQ does not predict results of pH monitoring in patients with typical symptoms in a tertiary care setting.