This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Where exactly in that review does it say that "an interaction between the immune system and the intestinal flora are the main cause of IBS". I didn't read the whole thing, so I might have missed it. Also it looks like this review is mostly a study on probiotics.
If you do a general search for reviews on the etiology of IBS, these reviews come up:
http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v62/n3/abs/pr2007210a.html http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v103/n3/abs/ajg200850148a.html
-- sciencewatcher ( talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/nrgastro/journal/v7/n3/full/nrgastro.2010.4.html
Yes, an encyclopedia controlled by bigPharma editors. I have no faith on this site as my entry was undone with a citation from an international journal in GI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NulliusinverbaC4URSelf ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 18:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC) – Updated 01:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to Doc James for cleaning up the lead section and sourcing much from the NIDDK fact sheet [1]. I think the way they define this is very good: "Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a group of symptoms—including pain or discomfort in your abdomen and changes in your bowel movement patterns—that occur together" and helps to start the article with the idea that IBS is not a single disorder but a symptom cluster (group of symptoms/syndrome). Can we incorporate the words in this source please? Jrfw51 ( talk) 12:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Under Management, and further under Diet, we find FODMAPs diet, where the latter two seem to not be aware of each other. Wouldn't it be better to rewrite these, since they deal with the same/overlap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 ( talk) 09:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose adding this condtion to the list. The same source as in "Bile acid malabsorption" could be used, which is number 12 there. ( Walters, JR (2010). "Defining primary bile acid diarrhea: making the diagnosis and recognizing the disorder". Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology. 4 (5): 561–7. doi:10.1586/egh.10.54.
PMID
20932141. )
77.252.193.181 (
talk)
21:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)anon, 01/31/2016— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.252.193.181 (
talk) 20:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
About this edit [2], this is a minor issue, but I would like to know what to do in future occasions.
I understood that they are two different links, not duplicates.
I linked to the section on the diet [[FODMAP#Low-FODMAP diet|diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols]] (for those who want to see the diet) and to the page ([[FODMAP]]s) (for those who want to see the definition of FODMAP).
Only the first link (to the diet section) has been maintained. But I think that when most readers click and enter the diet section are not oriented, they do not have to know that navigating up the page they arrive to the definition. -- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 06:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the posited conclusion of the sentence " Antidepressants are not effective for IBS in people suffering from depression, possible because lower doses of antidepressants than the doses used to treat depression are required for relief of IBS" and I'm unsure as to whether that is what the source says. It states "TCAs and SSRIs are not effective in IBS patients with depression. However, a smaller dose of antidepressants than that used for depression is required to improve the symptoms of IBS". It's not clear to me whether it is stating that TCAs and SSRIs are not effective for these individuals for IBS or for depression. Whatever the meaning of the former sentence, it is not clear to me that the second sentence is being given as a reason for the first. Any thoughts? Mutt Lunker ( talk) 09:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rome II Conference. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
From the medical news: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326728.php
Maybe worth adding this in the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.245.51.49 ( talk) 23:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I included the referenced former names for the condition in the introductory sentence not too long ago. However, someone may want to find another source, or a few more, to determine, which former names are more commonly referenced, and remove the ones that are not (or move the lesser sourced ones elsewhere). The introductory sentence just seems kind of long. SchizoidNightmares ( talk) 01:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Where exactly in that review does it say that "an interaction between the immune system and the intestinal flora are the main cause of IBS". I didn't read the whole thing, so I might have missed it. Also it looks like this review is mostly a study on probiotics.
If you do a general search for reviews on the etiology of IBS, these reviews come up:
http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v62/n3/abs/pr2007210a.html http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v103/n3/abs/ajg200850148a.html
-- sciencewatcher ( talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/nrgastro/journal/v7/n3/full/nrgastro.2010.4.html
Yes, an encyclopedia controlled by bigPharma editors. I have no faith on this site as my entry was undone with a citation from an international journal in GI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NulliusinverbaC4URSelf ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 18:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC) – Updated 01:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to Doc James for cleaning up the lead section and sourcing much from the NIDDK fact sheet [1]. I think the way they define this is very good: "Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a group of symptoms—including pain or discomfort in your abdomen and changes in your bowel movement patterns—that occur together" and helps to start the article with the idea that IBS is not a single disorder but a symptom cluster (group of symptoms/syndrome). Can we incorporate the words in this source please? Jrfw51 ( talk) 12:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Under Management, and further under Diet, we find FODMAPs diet, where the latter two seem to not be aware of each other. Wouldn't it be better to rewrite these, since they deal with the same/overlap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 ( talk) 09:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I propose adding this condtion to the list. The same source as in "Bile acid malabsorption" could be used, which is number 12 there. ( Walters, JR (2010). "Defining primary bile acid diarrhea: making the diagnosis and recognizing the disorder". Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology. 4 (5): 561–7. doi:10.1586/egh.10.54.
PMID
20932141. )
77.252.193.181 (
talk)
21:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)anon, 01/31/2016— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.252.193.181 (
talk) 20:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
About this edit [2], this is a minor issue, but I would like to know what to do in future occasions.
I understood that they are two different links, not duplicates.
I linked to the section on the diet [[FODMAP#Low-FODMAP diet|diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols]] (for those who want to see the diet) and to the page ([[FODMAP]]s) (for those who want to see the definition of FODMAP).
Only the first link (to the diet section) has been maintained. But I think that when most readers click and enter the diet section are not oriented, they do not have to know that navigating up the page they arrive to the definition. -- BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 06:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the posited conclusion of the sentence " Antidepressants are not effective for IBS in people suffering from depression, possible because lower doses of antidepressants than the doses used to treat depression are required for relief of IBS" and I'm unsure as to whether that is what the source says. It states "TCAs and SSRIs are not effective in IBS patients with depression. However, a smaller dose of antidepressants than that used for depression is required to improve the symptoms of IBS". It's not clear to me whether it is stating that TCAs and SSRIs are not effective for these individuals for IBS or for depression. Whatever the meaning of the former sentence, it is not clear to me that the second sentence is being given as a reason for the first. Any thoughts? Mutt Lunker ( talk) 09:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rome II Conference. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
From the medical news: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326728.php
Maybe worth adding this in the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.245.51.49 ( talk) 23:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I included the referenced former names for the condition in the introductory sentence not too long ago. However, someone may want to find another source, or a few more, to determine, which former names are more commonly referenced, and remove the ones that are not (or move the lesser sourced ones elsewhere). The introductory sentence just seems kind of long. SchizoidNightmares ( talk) 01:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)