Background/Aims: Amitriptyline is prescribed off-label for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We conducted a meta-analysis to assess its efficacy. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted until November 10, 2023, using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to study the efficacy of amitriptyline in patients with IBS. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared amitriptyline to placebo. Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of studies. Meta-analyses were performed using a bivariate random-effects model. Statistical analyses were performed using R Software 4.2.3 and heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 statistics. Results: Seven trials were included with 796 patients (61% female). Amitriptyline was associated with better treatment response (OR, 5.30; 95% CI, 2.47 to 11.39; P < 0.001), reduced Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptom Severity Scores (MD, –50.72; 95% CI, –94.23 to –7.20; P = 0.020) and improved diarrhea (OR, 10.55; 95% CI, 2.90 to 38.41; P < 0.001). No significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the adverse effects was observed. Three trials showed an overall low risk of bias, 2 trials showed an overall high risk of bias due to randomization and missing data, and 2 trials had some concerns regarding missing data. Conclusions Amitriptyline was found to be well-tolerated and effective in treating IBS compared to placebo. These findings support the use of amitriptyline for the management of IBS, particularly among patients with the IBS diarrhea subtype. Future research should focus on the dose-dependent effects of amitriptyline in IBS to better guide clinicians in personalized titration regimens.

Background/Aims: Amitriptyline is prescribed off-label for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We conducted a meta-analysis to assess its efficacy. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted until November 10, 2023, using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to study the efficacy of amitriptyline in patients with IBS. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared amitriptyline to placebo. Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of studies. Meta-analyses were performed using a bivariate random-effects model. Statistical analyses were performed using R Software 4.2.3 and heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 statistics. Results: Seven trials were included with 796 patients (61% female). Amitriptyline was associated with better treatment response (OR, 5.30; 95% CI, 2.47 to 11.39; P < 0.001), reduced Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptom Severity Scores (MD, –50.72; 95% CI, –94.23 to –7.20; P = 0.020) and improved diarrhea (OR, 10.55; 95% CI, 2.90 to 38.41; P < 0.001). No significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the adverse effects was observed. Three trials showed an overall low risk of bias, 2 trials showed an overall high risk of bias due to randomization and missing data, and 2 trials had some concerns regarding missing data. Conclusions Amitriptyline was found to be well-tolerated and effective in treating IBS compared to placebo. These findings support the use of amitriptyline for the management of IBS, particularly among patients with the IBS diarrhea subtype. Future research should focus on the dose-dependent effects of amitriptyline in IBS to better guide clinicians in personalized titration regimens.

Background/Aims: Amitriptyline is prescribed off-label for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We conducted a meta-analysis to assess its efficacy. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted until November 10, 2023, using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to study the efficacy of amitriptyline in patients with IBS. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared amitriptyline to placebo. Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of studies. Meta-analyses were performed using a bivariate random-effects model. Statistical analyses were performed using R Software 4.2.3 and heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 statistics. Results: Seven trials were included with 796 patients (61% female). Amitriptyline was associated with better treatment response (OR, 5.30; 95% CI, 2.47 to 11.39; P < 0.001), reduced Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptom Severity Scores (MD, –50.72; 95% CI, –94.23 to –7.20; P = 0.020) and improved diarrhea (OR, 10.55; 95% CI, 2.90 to 38.41; P < 0.001). No significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the adverse effects was observed. Three trials showed an overall low risk of bias, 2 trials showed an overall high risk of bias due to randomization and missing data, and 2 trials had some concerns regarding missing data. Conclusions Amitriptyline was found to be well-tolerated and effective in treating IBS compared to placebo. These findings support the use of amitriptyline for the management of IBS, particularly among patients with the IBS diarrhea subtype. Future research should focus on the dose-dependent effects of amitriptyline in IBS to better guide clinicians in personalized titration regimens.

Rickets, one of the leading causes of bony deformities and short stature, can be calciopenic (inciting event is defective intestinal calcium absorption) or phosphopenic (inciting event is phosphaturia). Early diagnosis and timely treatment of rickets are crucial for correction of the limb deformities. Guidelines exist for nutritional rickets, but the diagnosis and management of the relatively uncommon forms of rickets are complex. This consensus aims to formulate a simplified diagnostic approach for rickets, especially in resource-limited settings. The consensus statement has been formulated by a 29-member committee from the Endocrine Society of Bengal. The process included forming a working group, conducting a literature review, identifying controversies, drafting, and discussion at a consensus meeting. Participants rated their agreement with the clinical practice points, and a 70% consensus was required. Input integration and further review led to the final consensus statements. Children with suspected rickets should initially be examined for distinctive skeletal deformities. The diagnosis of rickets should be confirmed with characteristic radiographic abnormalities. It is advisable to order tests for serum calcium, inorganic phosphorus (Pi), liver function, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD), parathyroid hormone, creatinine, and potassium in all patients with rickets. In cases of refractory rickets, it is also recommended that assessments be conducted for spot urine calcium, Pi, creatinine, and, blood gas analysis. In children with rickets and metabolic acidosis, tests for glycosuria, uricosuria, aminoaciduria, low molecular weight proteinuria, and albuminuria should be conducted. In children with resistant calciopenic rickets and sufficient serum 25OHD levels, serum 1,25(OH)2D concentration should be tested. 1,25(OH)2 D and fibroblast growth factor 23 estimation is useful for certain forms of phosphopenic rickets.

Purpose: Despite the significant role of varicocele in the pathogenesis of male infertility, the impact of varicocele repair (VR) on conventional semen parameters remains controversial. Only a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have evaluated the impact of VR on sperm concentration, total motility, and progressive motility, mostly using a before-after analytic approach. No SRMA to date has evaluated the change in conventional semen parameters after VR compared to untreated controls. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of VR on conventional semen parameters in infertile patients with clinical varicocele compared to untreated controls. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICOS) model (Population: infertile patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: VR [any technique]; Comparison: infertile patients with clinical varicocele that were untreated; Outcome: sperm concentration, sperm total count, progressive sperm motility, total sperm motility, sperm morphology, and semen volume; Study type: randomized controlled trials and observational studies). Results: A total of 1,632 abstracts were initially assessed for eligibility. Sixteen studies were finally included with a total of 2,420 infertile men with clinical varicocele (1,424 patients treated with VR vs. 996 untreated controls). The analysis showed significantly improved post-operative semen parameters in patients compared to controls with regards to sperm concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.739; 95% CI 1.129 to 2.349; p<0.001; I2=97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I2=97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I2=98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I2=97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I2=98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I2=89.7%). Conclusions This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies’ practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men.