Intervention Protocol

You have free access to this content

Dietary interventions for recurrent abdominal pain in childhood

  1. Alice E Martin1,*,
  2. Tamsin V Newlove-Delgado2,
  3. Rebecca A Abbott2,
  4. Alison Bethel2,
  5. Joanna Thompson-Coon2,
  6. Vasilis Nikolaou3,
  7. Stuart Logan2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group

Published Online: 14 FEB 2014

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010972


How to Cite

Martin AE, Newlove-Delgado TV, Abbott RA, Bethel A, Thompson-Coon J, Nikolaou V, Logan S. Dietary interventions for recurrent abdominal pain in childhood (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD010972. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010972.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Paediatrics, Exeter, England, UK

  2. 2

    University of Exeter, Peninsula CLAHRC, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, England, UK

  3. 3

    University of Exeter, Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, Devon, UK

*Alice E Martin, Paediatrics, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Barrack Road, Exeter, England, EX2 5DW, UK. alice.martin@doctors.org.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 14 FEB 2014

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. What's new
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
  10. Notes
 

Description of the condition

Recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) is a common problem in paediatric practice. It has been suggested that 4% to 25% of school-aged children suffer from RAP that interferes with their activities of daily living (Apley 1958; Øster 1972; Faull 1986; Abu-Arafeh 1995; Williams 1996). It is regarded as a benign condition, but it is important to note the morbidity incurred by these children. It is hard to say the condition is truly benign considering the related school absences, hospital admissions, and appendectomies for symptoms that continue (Stickler 1979; Scharff 1997; Walker 1998; Størdal 2005), sometimes even into adulthood (Apley 1975). Moreover, the abdominal pain is commonly associated with other symptoms, including headaches, recurrent limb pains, pallor, and vomiting (Apley 1958; Stone 1970; Øster 1972; Stickler 1979; Faull 1986; Abu-Arafeh 1995; Hyams 1995).

It is increasingly recognised that RAP in children represents a group of functional gastrointestinal disorders that have an unclear aetiology. Children suffer either chronic or recurrent gastrointestinal symptoms not explained by a structural, biochemical or inflammatory process. Apley first sought to define the condition in the 1950's and suggested that at least three episodes of severe abdominal pain over three months (Apley 1958), often with associated systemic symptoms but no established organic cause, fulfils a diagnosis of RAP. Now there is international consensus with a symptom-based classification system, the Rome III criteria, which has specific categories for paediatric presentations (Rasquin 2006). The categories include: functional dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, abdominal migraine, and functional abdominal pain syndrome. It should be noted that the pain classification for each of the Rome III diagnoses is defined by at least one episode per week for at least two months; this varies from Apley's original definition of RAP (Apley 1958). The Rome classification is not based on known pathophysiological differences between the conditions but rather the collection of features for each manifestation. Thus, it remains unclear the extent to which separating children into these categories defines groups as distinct clinical entities that are likely to respond differently to treatment. Nonetheless, this classification has been welcomed following the historical use of diverse terms, some implying causation. These include: "abdominal migraine" (Farquar 1956; Bain 1974; Symon 1986; Hockaday 1992), "abdominal epilepsy" (Stowens 1970), "the irritable bowel syndrome in childhood" (Stone 1970), "allergic-tension-fatigue syndrome" (Speer 1954; Sandberg 1973), "neurovegetative dystonia" (Rubin 1967; Peltonen 1970), "functional gastrointestinal disorder" (Drossman 1995), and "the irritated colon syndrome" (Painter 1964; Harvey 1973). The paediatric Rome criteria are an attempt to improve the diagnosis, study, and treatment of children with RAP (Walker 1989; Schurman 2005).

There have been several proposed causal pathways that result in the heterogeneous presentations of chronic abdominal pain. It is recognised that physical, emotional, and environmental factors may contribute to cause the manifestation of unexplained abdominal pain. When considering the diverse causes, it is unsurprising that a variety of treatments have been suggested. The treatment approaches can be grouped as pharmacological, dietary or psychological, and behavioural.

 

Pharmacological treatments

A range of pharmacological treatments have been tried and tested: analgesics, dicyclomine (Edwards 1994), pizotifen (Christensen 1995; Symon 1995), herbal extracts (Zhang 1991), and many other drugs (Bain 1974; Worawattanakul 1999). A number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported on the use of peppermint oil for irritable bowel syndrome in adults (Grigoleit 2005), and the results have been interpreted as suggesting it is a beneficial intervention. However, an earlier review reached no clear conclusion on efficacy due to poor methodological quality of the included studies (Pittler 1998). Other possible causal factors have been postulated including food allergies (Poley 1973), reaction to food additives (Anonymous 1984), infectious agents like Helicobacter pylori (Heldenberg 1995), and parasitic infestation (Primelles 1990; Wardhan 1993).

 

Psychosocial interventions

A variety of psychological and behavioural approaches have been used, including behavioural and cognitive-behavioural techniques (Sanders 1994; Scharff 1997), psychotherapy (Vasquez 1992), family-centred approaches (Liebman 1976; Wetchler 1992; Walker 1999), and multi-component therapies (Finney 1989; Edwards 1991; Humphreys 1998; Hicks 2006).

It seems likely that many children, especially those at the milder end of the spectrum, do not present to the health care system or only present to primary care. For these children, the principal management is likely to be reassurance that the pain does not represent significant organic pathology. Even in secondary care, a large proportion of children with RAP are treated with reassurance following investigations for treatable causes (Edwards 1994).

 

Description of the intervention

Many dietary inventions have been suggested to improve the symptoms of RAP. These involve either excluding or reducing a food group or specific ingredient from the diet or supplementing it and therefore increasing its intake. The dietary interventions include low oxalate diets (Feldman 1985), eliminating food groups, such as dairy products (Bayless 1971; Bain 1974; Liebman 1979), some fruits, meats or rye (Farquar 1956; Minford 1982), and taking fibre supplements (Feldman 1985; Christensen 1986). Increased dietary fibre may be of benefit in adults with irritable bowel syndrome (Rasmussen 1982; Lambert 1991). Probiotics have also been given to children with RAP (Wilhelm 2008).

This review will focus on any intervention with dietary changes intended to improve symptoms of RAP.

 

How the intervention might work

The aetiology of abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorders is unclear. It has been suggested that visceral hypersensitivity (Di Lorenzo 2001; Van Ginkel 2001), autonomic dysfunction (Good 1995), and gut dysmotility may contribute, and this may be initiated by an inflammatory, infective, traumatic or allergic trigger (Milla 2001; Mayer 2002). Foods may be the inflammatory or allergic triggers, but the mechanism of action remains unclear. This has led some clinicians to recommend various dietary manipulations. Dietary fibre alters gastrointestinal transit time and, therefore, may alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms (Spiller 1994).

 

Why it is important to do this review

RAP in children is very common and in daily clinical practice there is no consensus on which treatments to offer patients. Therefore, there is an inconsistent approach. This review is important to establish if there is evidence for the effectiveness of dietary interventions in children with RAP. This is a new and updated protocol for an earlier review published in 2009 (Huertas-Ceballos 2009). Companion reviews addressing the effectiveness of pharmacological and psychosocial interventions for RAP are also having new protocols prepared and will be updated (Huertas-Ceballos 2008a; Huertas-Ceballos 2008b), so together they can guide clinicians, patients, and their families in treatment decisions.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. What's new
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
  10. Notes

To examine the effectiveness of dietary interventions for RAP in children of school age.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. What's new
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
  10. Notes
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

RCTs.

 

Types of participants

Children aged five to 18 years old with RAP or a abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorder defined by the Rome III criteria.

RAP is defined as at least three episodes of pain interfering with normal activities within a three month period. The Rome III criteria recognises four abdominal pain-related categories: "abdominal migraine", "irritable bowel syndrome", "functional dyspepsia", "functional abdominal pain", and "functional abdominal pain syndrome" (Rasquin 2006).

 

Types of interventions

Any dietary intervention compared to placebo, waiting list, no treatment or standard care.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

Pain intensity, duration or frequency.

There is no standard method for measuring pain in this condition. Studies may use any validated measurement of pain, and may report the proportion of participants with significant improvement in pain, as defined by the trial author. We expect studies to vary in their duration of post-intervention follow-up. Therefore we will group studies according to duration of follow-up: immediate outcome measurement, short term (less than three months), medium term (three to 12 months), and long term (greater than 12 months).

 

Secondary outcomes

As measured by a validated tool:

  • school performance;
  • social/psychological functioning;
  • quality of daily life.

We will present all outcomes in a 'Summary of findings' table.

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

We will search the following electronic databases for relevant studies:

We will adapt the following search strategy for Ovid MEDLINE for other databases as listed above. The search terms have been revised from the original Cochrane RAP reviews (Huertas-Ceballos 2008a; Huertas-Ceballos 2008b; Huertas-Ceballos 2009); therefore searches will be run for all available years. We will use RCT filters where appropriate and no language limits will be imposed. We will translate any non-English language studies found in order to be screened and considered for inclusion.

1 Recurr$.tw.
2 Chronic$.tw.
3 Intermittent$.tw.
4 Bout$1.tw.
5 spasm$.tw.
6 Transitory.tw.
7 Transient.tw.
8 Functional.tw.
9 Continu$.tw.
10 Paroxysmal.tw.
11 Persistent.tw.
12 Idiopathic.tw.
13 unspecifi$.tw.
14 Non specifi$.tw.
15 nonspecifi$.tw.
16 motility.tw.
17 episod$.tw.
18 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17
19 exp Recurrence/
20 18 or 19
21 ((pain$ or Ache$ or Sore$ or Discomfort$ or Distress$ or Cramp$ or Disorder$1 or Symptom$1 or Migraine$1 or Epilep$ or syndrome$1 or colic$) adj3 (stomach$ or abdom$ or intestin$ or viscera$ or tummy or bowel$ or belly or gastrointestinal or gi or gastric)).tw.
22 exp Colic/
23 exp Irritable Bowel Syndrome/ or exp Colonic Diseases, Functional/
24 exp abdominal pain/ or exp dyspepsia/
25 Colonic disease$.tw
26 IBS.tw.
27 Functional dyspepsia.tw.
28 irritable bowel$.tw.
29 exp Abdomen, Acute/
30 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28 or 29
31 21 or 30
32 20 and 31
33 randomized controlled trial.pt.
34 controlled clinical trial.pt.
35 randomi#ed.ab.
36 placebo$.ab.
37 placebo$.ab.
38 drug therapy.fs.
39 randomly.ab.
40 trial.ab.
41 groups.ab.
42 33 or 34 or 35 or 36 or 37 or 38 or 39 or 40 or 41
43 exp animals/ not humans.sh.
44 42 not 43
45 exp Child/
46 exp Adolescent/
47 exp Young Adult/
48 exp Students/
49 Child$.tw.
50 Adolescen$.tw.
51 Young person$.tw.
52 Boy$.tw.
53 Girl$.tw.
54 teen$.tw.
55 Schoolchild$.tw.
56 Young adult$.tw.
57 Youth$.tw.
58 P*ediatric$.tw.
59 Student$.tw.
60 Pupil$.tw.
61 Juvenile$.tw.
62 45 or 46 or 47 or 48 or 49 or 50 or 51 or 52 or 53 or 54 or 55 or 56 or 57 or 58 or 59 or 60 or 61
63 32 and 44 and 62

 

Searching other resources

We will use the Science Citation Index to locate relevant studies using the bibliographic details, and authors' names of relevant papers for forward and backward citations.

We will contact researchers who have published studies in this field to ask for details of any relevant trials.

We will also check the bibliographies of papers retrieved to establish if all pertinent references were found in our search.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Two authors (AM, TN, RA or AB) will independently screen the titles and abstracts of studies for relevance. We will obtain the full-text articles for all the possible papers and then select them for inclusion against the agreed inclusion criteria. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion with a third review author (JTC).

 

Data extraction and management

Two review authors (AM, TN, RA, AB or JTC) will extract data and enter them into the Cochrane Collaboration's statistical software, Review Manager 2013. All review authors will use the same data extraction form. We will collect the following data.

  1. Study characteristics: number of participating patients, inclusion and exclusion criteria, type of intervention and comparison, intervention characteristics (duration, frequency, setting), number of withdrawals.
  2. Participant characteristics: sex, age, diagnosis (for example, recurrent abdominal or syndrome defined by the Rome III criteria).
  3. Outcome measures: measurement of pain and any secondary outcome measured.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We will assess risk of bias in included studies under the following domains:

  • selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment);
  • performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel);
  • detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment);
  • attrition bias (incomplete outcome data);
  • reporting bias (selective reporting);
  • other sources of bias.

Two review authors (AM, TN, RA, AB or JTC) will independently assess each study. We will classify the risk of bias as "low risk", "high risk" or "unclear risk" in line with the methods detailed in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) ( Table 1).

We will assess all included studies for other sources of bias that may alter the estimate of treatment effect, for example, differential loss to follow-up. In cross-over studies it should be clear that the order of receiving treatments was randomised. There should be no assumed carry-over effects and, therefore, an adequate wash-out period. All the data should be available at the baseline, and before and after changing treatments; caution is required as although RAP is a chronic condition, most patients do improve with time (risk of period effects).

We will consider a trial as having an overall low risk of bias if most of the above domains are assessed as a low risk of bias. We will consider a trial as having an overall high risk of bias if several of the above domains are assessed as high risk of bias or unclear risk of bias.

We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence for a specific outcome (Higgins 2011). This will involve a consideration of within-study risk of bias (methodological quality), directness of evidence, heterogeneity, precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias. This study includes RCTs only. Although RCTs will begin as high quality evidence, they will be downgraded if most of the evidence comes from studies with a high risk of bias.

 

Measures of treatment effect

Our study results may be reported as:

  1. continuous data (that is, number of days of pain), for which we will analyse by means and standard deviations if available or can be calculated, and if there is no clear evidence of skewness in the distribution. If different scales are used to measure the same clinical outcome, we will combine standardised mean differences (SMDs) across the studies.
  2. dichotomous data (that is, pain improved, yes or no), which will be analysed using odds ratios (ORs).

 

Unit of analysis issues

If the following three types of trials are found, we will consider their results using the guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

 

1. Cross-over trials

For cross-over trials with random allocation to period and an appropriate washout period, we will include the relevant effect estimate within the meta-analysis using the generic inverse variance method in Review Manager 2013. An appropriate washout period will vary with the interventions (including drug pharmacokinetics) and outcome measurements. Considering RAP can be a stable and chronic condition, a washout period of several weeks may be sufficient.

 

2. Cluster-RCTs

Cluster-randomised trials randomise groups of people rather than individuals. For each cluster-randomised trial, we will first determine whether or not the data incorporate sufficient controls for clustering (such as robust standard errors or hierarchical linear models). If data do not have proper controls, then we will attempt to obtain an appropriate estimate of the data's intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC). If we cannot find an estimate in the report of the trial, we will request an estimate from the trial report authors. If the authors do not provide an estimate, if possible, we will obtain one from a similar study and conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine if the results are robust when different values are imputed. We will do this according to procedures described in Higgins 2011. This process will prevent the meta-analysis from being based on clustered data that have not been properly controlled.

 

3. Trials with multiple intervention groups

This is a common scenario. To avoid any unit-of-analysis errors in the meta-analysis, we will take the following approach for a study that could contribute multiple comparisons.

  • The interventions will only be analysed together if they are clinically similar, that is equivalent dietary interventions (such as eliminating or supplementing the same food group). In this situation the control group will not be split, but the intervention groups will be combined to enable a single pair-wise comparison for the meta-analysis. If the interventions are similar enough to be in a single meta-analysis but not able to be combined, then the control group will be split.
  • If the interventions are not similar, the data will be used in separated meta-analyses. So a single study may contribute data to different meta-analyses (for example if the interventions involved eliminating different food groups) and this does not require the control group to split.

We will not perform a multiple treatment meta-analysis as the clinical heterogeneity will make the results uninterpretable.

 

Dealing with missing data

In the first instance, we will contact the original investigators to request any missing data. If it is not possible to obtain the data from the original investigators, we will not impute values. A sensitivity analysis may be carried out to establish if inclusion of studies with high levels of missing data significantly alters the finding of the review. If there are proportions of participants for whom no outcome data are obtained, we will report them as a source of bias as described above. We will explore the potential impact of missing data on the findings of the review in the 'Discussion' section.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We anticipate finding considerable heterogeneity between included studies. We will assess clinical heterogeneity by examining the distribution of relevant participant characteristics (for example, age, definition of RAP) and study differences (for example, concealment of randomisation, blinding of outcome assessors, interventions or outcome measures). We will describe statistical heterogeneity (observed variability in study results that is greater than that expected to occur by chance) by calculating I2 (Higgins 2003). I2 describes approximately the proportion of variation in point estimates due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error. I2 more than 50% may indicate significant heterogeneity.

We will use Chi test to further assess the strength of evidence for the heterogeneity. Any result with a P value lower than 0.10 will be regarded as indicating significant statistical heterogeneity. We will interpret this cautiously and use it to help quantify the impact of heterogeneity on the results of the meta-analysis (Higgins 2003).

 

Assessment of reporting biases

 

Publication bias

If we identify sufficient trials (at least 10), outcome data will be used to produce a funnel plot to investigate the likelihood of overt publication bias (Sutton 2000). Any asymmetry of the funnel plot may indicate possible publication bias. We will explore other reasons for asymmetry such as poor methodological quality or heterogeneity. We could also look for publication bias by comparing the results of the published and unpublished data.

 

Outcome reporting bias

We will examine reports of a study to assess for selective outcome reporting. The study will be assessed as adequate if it meets the following criteria:

  • the study protocol is available and all of the study's pre-specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest to the review have been reported in the pre-specified way;
  • the study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre-specified.

 

Data synthesis

We will use Review Manager 2013 for statistical analysis. Two review authors (AM, TN, RA, AB or JTC) will enter data into Review Manager 2013 independently. We will report summary statistics for continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or SMDs using a random-effects model. For dichotomous data, we will calculate the ORs using a random-effects model. We will use a random-effects model as we anticipate significant statistical and clinical heterogeneity.

A meta-analysis will only be carried out if it is appropriate to do so, that is, if the studies are sufficiently homogeneous. We will thus only carry out a meta-analysis using data from studies with equivalent dietary interventions, for example excluding the same food group. We are aware that given the heterogeneity of the dietary manipulations investigated for RAP and the variety of methods to measure pain, a meta-analysis may not be possible (DerSimonian 1986). In that case, we will provide a narrative description of the results.

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

If sufficient trials are available and statistical heterogeneity is evident, we will conduct the following subgroup analyses to explore clinical heterogeneity:

  • type of RAP (defined by the Rome III criteria) (Rasquin 2006);
  • age;
  • duration of follow-up: immediate outcome measurement, short term (less than three months), medium term (three to 12 months), and long term (greater than 12 months).

Subgroup analysis can be misleading because the studies may not be designed and powered to show difference within subgroups. Therefore, we will undertake subgroup analyses with caution.

 

Sensitivity analysis

We will base our primary analyses on available data on the outcomes of interest.

Following this, we will use a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of conclusions in relation to two aspects of study design. We will assess:

  1. the effect of inadequate allocation concealment, by the removal of studies judged as high or unclear risk of bias in this domain; and
  2. the effect of inadequate blinding to treatment allocation by outcome assessors, by the removal of studies judged as high or unclear risk of bias in this domain.

A sensitivity analysis may also be carried out to establish the effect of missing data on the estimate of treatment effect. Therefore, we will perform the analysis with and without the studies with significant missing data to see if this alters the conclusions.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. What's new
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
  10. Notes

We acknowledge the work done for the original reviews: Angela Huertas-Ceballos, Stuart Logan, Cathy Bennett, Sarah See, Colin Macarthur, and Morris Zwi.

 

What's new

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. What's new
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
  10. Notes


DateEventDescription

31 January 2014New citation required and major changesUpdate of review with revised protocol



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. What's new
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
  10. Notes

Review design: AM, SL
Review co-ordination: AM
Data collection:

  • Search strategy design: AM, AB
  • Searches: AM, AB
  • Search results screening: AM, AB, RA, TN, JTC
  • Retrieval of papers: AM, AB
  • Paper screening and appraisal, and extraction of data: AM, AB, RA, TN, JTC
  • Writing to authors for additional information: AM, AB
  • Entering the data into RevMan: AM, AB, RA, TN, JTC

Analysis of the data: AM, AB, RA, TN, JTC, SL
Interpretation of the data:

  • Methodological perspective: AM, AB, RA, TN, JTC
  • Clinical perspective: AM, TN, SL

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. What's new
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
  10. Notes

Alice E Martin (AM) - none known.
Tamsin V Newlove-Delgado (TN) - none known.
Rebecca A Abbott (RA) - none known.
Alison Bethel (AB) - none known.
Jo Thompson-Coon (JTC) - none known.
Stuart Logan (SL) - none known.
Vasilis Nikolaou (VN) - none known.

The authors who practice clinical paediatrics are AM and SL. AM is a paediatric trainee and works under the guidance of various Consultant Paediatricians. SL is a Consultant Paediatrician and treats children according to current best evidence, in light of their preference. Therefore, there are no conflicts of interest with this review.

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. What's new
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
  10. Notes
 

Internal sources

  • None, Not specified.

 

External sources

  • None, Not specified.

 

Notes

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. What's new
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
  9. Sources of support
  10. Notes

This is a new protocol for the update of a previously published review (Huertas-Ceballos 2009).

References

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. What's new
  8. Contributions of authors
  9. Declarations of interest
  10. Sources of support
  11. Notes
  12. Additional references
  13. References to other published versions of this review
Abu-Arafeh 1995
  • Abu-Arafeh I, Russell G. Prevalence and clinical features of abdominal migraine compared with those of migraine headache. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1995;72(5):413-7.
Anonymous 1984
  • Anonymous. Adverse reactions to food additives. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 1984;18(2):115-6.
Apley 1958
  • Apley J, Naish N. Recurrent abdominal pains: a field survey of 1000 school children. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1958;33(168):165-70.
Apley 1975
  • Apley J. The Child with Abdominal Pains. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1975.
Bain 1974
  • Bain H. Chronic vague abdominal pain in children. Pediatric Clinics of North America 1974;21(4):991-1001.
Bayless 1971
  • Bayless MD, Huang SS. Recurrent abdominal pain due to milk and lactose intolerance in school-aged children. Pediatrics 1971;47(6):1029-32.
Christensen 1986
  • Christensen MF. Recurrent abdominal pain and dietary fiber. American Journal of Diseases in Children 1986;140(8):738-9.
Christensen 1995
  • Christensen MF. Double blind placebo controlled trial of pizotifen syrup in the treatment of abdominal migraine. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1995;73(2):183.
DerSimonian 1986
  • DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7:177-88.
Di Lorenzo 2001
  • Di Lorenzo C, Youssef NN, Siqurdsson L, Scharff L, Griffiths J, Wald A. Visceral hyperalgesia in children with functional abdominal pain. The Journal of Pediatrics 2001;139(6):838-43.
Drossman 1995
  • Drossman DA, Creed FH, Fava GA, Olden KW, Patrick DL, Toner BB, et al. Psychosocial aspects of the functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterology International 1995;8(2):47-90.
Edwards 1991
  • Edwards MC, Finney JW, Bonner M. Matching treatment with recurrent abdominal pain symptoms: an evaluation of dietary fiber and relaxation treatments. Behavior Therapy 1991;22(2):257-67.
Edwards 1994
  • Edwards MC, Mullins L, Johnson J, Bernardy N. Survey of pediatricians' management practices for recurrent abdominal pain. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1994;19(2):241-53.
Farquar 1956
  • Farquar HG. Abdominal migraine in children. BMJ 1956;1(4975):1082-5.
Faull 1986
  • Faull C, Nicol AR. Abdominal pain in six-year-olds: an epidemiological study in a new town. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 1986;27(2):251-60.
Feldman 1985
  • Feldman W, McGrath P, Hodgson C, Ritter H, Shipman RT. The use of dietary fiber in the management of simple, childhood, idiopathic, recurrent, abdominal pain. Results in a prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. American Journal of Diseases in Children 1985;139(12):1216-8.
Finney 1989
  • Finney JW, Lemanek KL, Cataldo MF, Katz HP, Fuqua RW. Pediatric psychology in primary health care: brief targeted therapy for recurrent abdominal pain. Behavior Therapy 1989;20(2):283-91.
Good 1995
  • Good PA. Neurologic investigations of childhood abdominal migraine: a combined electrophysiologic approach to diagnosis. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterolology and Nutrition 1995;21(Suppl 1):S44-8.
Grigoleit 2005
  • Grigoleit HG, Grigoleit P. Peppermint oil in irritable bowel syndrome. Phytomedicine 2005;12(8):601-6.
Harvey 1973
  • Harvey RF, Pomare EW, Heaton KW. Effects of increased dietary fibre on intestinal transit. Lancet 1973;1(7815):1278-80.
Heldenberg 1995
  • Heldenberg D, Wagner Y, Heldenberg E, Keren S, Auslaender L, Kaufshtein M, et al. The role of Helicobacter pylori in children with recurrent abdominal pain. American Journal of Gastroenterology 1995;90(6):906-9.
Hicks 2006
  • Hicks CL, Von Baeyer CL, McGrath PJ. Online psychological treatment for pediatric recurrent pain: a randomized evaluation. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2006;31(7):724-36.
Higgins 2003
  • Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Hockaday 1992
  • Hockaday JM. Is there a place for "abdominal migraine" as a separate entity in the IHS classification? No!. Cephalalgia 1992;12(6):346-8.
Huertas-Ceballos 2008a
  • Huertas-Ceballos AA, Logan S, Bennett C, Macarthur C. Pharmacological interventions for recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in childhood. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003017.pub2]
Huertas-Ceballos 2008b
  • Huertas-Ceballos AA, Macarthur C, Logan S. Psychosocial interventions for recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in childhood. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003014.pub2]
Humphreys 1998
  • Humphreys PA. Components Analysis of Behavioral Treatment of Children Diagnosed with Recurrent Abdominal Pain [PhD Thesis]. San Diego: California School of Professional Psychology, 1998.
Hyams 1995
  • Hyams JS, Treem WR, Justinich CJ, Davis P, Shoup M, Burke G. Characterization of symptoms in children with recurrent abdominal pain: resemblance to irritable bowel syndrome. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 1995;20(2):209-14.
Lambert 1991
  • Lambert JP, Brunt PW, Mowat NAG, Khin CC, Lai CKW, Morrison V, et al. The value of prescribed "high fibre" diets for the treatment of the irritable bowel syndrome. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1991;45(12):601-9.
Liebman 1976
  • Liebman R, Honig P, Berger H. An integrated treatment program for psychogenic pain. Family Process 1976;15(4):397-405.
Liebman 1979
  • Liebman WM. Recurrent abdominal pain in children: lactose and sucrose intolerance, a prospective study. Pediatrics 1979;64(1):43-5.
Mayer 2002
  • Mayer EA, Collins SM. Evolving pathophysiology models of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterology 2002;122(7):2032-48.
Milla 2001
  • Milla PJ. Irritable bowel syndrome in childhood. Gastroenterology 2001;120:287-90.
Minford 1982
  • Minford AMB, MacDonald A, Littlewood JM. Food intolerance and food allergy in children: a review of 68 cases. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1982;57(10):742-7.
Painter 1964
  • Painter NS, Truelove SC. Irritable bowel syndrome in childhood. Gut 1964;5:201.
Peltonen 1970
  • Peltonen T. Recurrent abdominal pain. Pediatrics 1970;46(6):973.
Pittler 1998
  • Pittler MH, Ernst E. Peppermint oil for irritable bowel syndrome: a critical review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Gastroenterology 1998;93(7):1131-5.
Poley 1973
  • Poley JR, Bhatia M. Recurrent abdominal pain: recurrent controversy. Pediatrics 1973;52(1):144-5.
Primelles 1990
  • Primelles D, Grass M, Campoy PE, Estrada R, Carvajal A, Rubino de la Rosa J. Recurrent abdominal pain in childhood: retrospective study of 150 cases [Dolor abdominal recurrente en la infancia: estudio retrospectivo de 150 casos]. Revista Cubana de Pediatria 1990;62(1):18-27.
Rasmussen 1982
  • Rasmussen SN, Bondesen S, Edmund C. High fibre diet in the treatment of the irritable bowel syndrome: a controlled clinical investigation [Behandling af colon irritabile med kstfiberrig diaet]. Ugeskr Laeger 1982;144(33):2415-7.
Rasquin 2006
  • Rasquin A, Di Lorenzo C, Forbes D, Guiraldes E, Hyams JS, Staiano A, et al. Childhood functional gastrointestinal disorders: child/adolescent. Gastroenterology 2006;130(5):1527–37.
Review Manager 2013
  • The Nordic Centre, The Cochrane Collboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Centre, The Cochrane Collboration, 2013.
Rubin 1967
  • Rubin LS, Barbero GL, Sibinga MS. Pupillary reactivity in children with recurrent abdominal pain. Psychosomatic Medicine 1967;2:111-20.
Sandberg 1973
  • Sandberg DH. Additional references on the tension-fatigue syndrome. Pediatrics 1973;51(2):308-9.
Sanders 1994
  • Sanders MR, Shepherd RW, Cleghorn G, Woolford H. The treatment of recurrent abdominal pain in children: a controlled comparison of cognitive-behavioral family intervention and standard pediatric care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1994;62(2):306-14.
Scharff 1997
  • Scharff L. Recurrent abdominal pain in children: a review of psychological factors and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review 1997;17(2):145-66.
Schurman 2005
  • Schurman JV, Fiesen CA, Danda CE, Andre L, Welchert E, Lavenbarg T, et al. Diagnosing functional abdominal pain with the Rome II criteria: parent, child and clinician agreement. Journal of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 2005;41(3):291-5.
Speer 1954
  • Speer F. The allergic tension-fatigue syndrome. Pediatric Clinics of North America 1954;11:1029-38.
Spiller 1994
  • Spiller RC. Pharmacology of dietary fibre. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1994;62(3):407-27.
Stickler 1979
  • Stickler GB, Murphy DB. Recurrent abdominal pain. American Journal of Diseases in Children 1979;133(5):486-9.
Stone 1970
  • Stone RT, Barbero GJ. Recurrent abdominal pain in childhood. Pediatrics 1970;45:732-8.
Stowens 1970
  • Stowens D. Recurrent abdominal pain. Pediatrics 1970;46(6):968-9.
Størdal 2005
  • Størdal K, Nygaard E, Bentsen B. Recurrent abdominal pain: a five-year follow-up study. Acta Paediatrica 2005;94(2):234-6.
Sutton 2000
  • Sutton A, Duval S, Tweedie R, Abrams K, Jones D. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta analysis. BMJ 2000;320(7249):1574-7.
Symon 1986
  • Symon DNK, Russell G. Abdominal migraine: a childhood syndrome defined. Cephalalgia 1986;6(4):223-8.
Symon 1995
  • Symon DN, Russell G. Double blind placebo controlled trial of pizotifen syrup in the treatment of abdominal migraine. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1995;72(1):48-50.
Van Ginkel 2001
  • Van Ginkel R, Voskuijl WP, Benninga MA, Taminiau JA, Boeckxs-taens GE. Alterations in rectal sensitivity and motility in childhood irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2001;120(1):31-8.
Vasquez 1992
  • Vasquez R, Calvo M, Martinez A, Chavez P. Recurrent abdominal pain in children [Dolor abdominal recurrente en ninos]. Actualizaciones Pediatricas 1992;2(1):22-7.
Walker 1989
  • Walker LS, Greene JW. Children with recurrent abdominal pain and their parents: more somatic complaints, anxiety, and depression than other patient families?. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 1989;14(2):231-43.
Walker 1998
  • Walker LS, Guite JW, Duke M, Barnard JA, Greene JW. Recurrent abdominal pain: a potential precursor of irritable bowel syndrome in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Pediatrics 1998;132(6):1010-5.
Walker 1999
  • Walker LS. The evolution of research on recurrent abdominal pain: history, assumptions and conceptual model. Chronic and Recurrent Pain in Children and Adolescents. Progress in Pain Research and Management. Seatle IASP Press 1999;13:141-71.
Wardhan 1993
  • Wardhan H, Ojha P, Kulshrestha R. Recurrent abdominal pain in children in developing countries frequently has an organic basis. Pediatric Surgery International 1993;8(1):20-22.
Wetchler 1992
  • Wetchler JL. Family treatment of a thirteen year-old with chronic stomach pain. Journal of Family Psychotherapy 1992;3(4):1-14.
Wilhelm 2008
  • Wilhelm SM, Brubaker CM, Varcak EA, Kale-Pradhan PB. Effectiveness of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Pharmacology 2008;28(4):496-505.
Williams 1996
  • Williams K, Chambers M, Logan S, Robinson D. Association of common health symptoms with bullying in primary school children. BMJ 1996;313(7048):17-9.
Worawattanakul 1999
  • Worawattanakul M, Phoads JM, Lichtman SN, Ulshen MH. Abdominal migraine: prophylactic treatment and follow up. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 1999;28(1):37-40.
Zhang 1991
  • Zhang H, Luo LL, Wang Y, Sun M. Diagnosis and treatment for recurrent abdominal pain in Infant. Sapparo Medical Journal 1991;60(6):561-3.
Øster 1972
  • Øster J. Recurrent abdominal pain, headache and limb pains in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 1972;50(3):429-36.

References to other published versions of this review

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. What's new
  8. Contributions of authors
  9. Declarations of interest
  10. Sources of support
  11. Notes
  12. Additional references
  13. References to other published versions of this review
Huertas-Ceballos 2009
  • Huertas-Ceballos A, Logan S, Bennett C, Macarthur C. Dietary interventions for recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in childhood. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003019.pub3]