↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hypnotherapy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
7 X users
4 Wikipedia pages
1 Q&A thread


133 Dimensions

Readers on

239 Mendeley
Hypnotherapy for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005110.pub2
Pubmed ID

Annette N Webb, Renata Kukuruzovic, Anthony G Catto‐Smith, Susan M Sawyer


Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder of unknown aetiology. Current pharmacological treatments have limited value. Hypnotherapy has been reported to have beneficial effects for IBS symptoms. To evaluate the efficacy of hypnotherapy for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials and quasi-randomised clinical trials were identified through structured searches of MEDLINE (1966 to March 2006), EMBASE (1980 to March 2006), PsycINFO (1806 to March 2006), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, 1982 to March 2006), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, 1985 to March 2006) and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials. Conference proceedings from Digestive Disease Week (1980 to 2005) were also searched. Eligible studies included all randomised and quasi-randomised clinical studies comparing hypnotherapy for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with no treatment or another therapeutic intervention. All studies were evaluated for eligibility for inclusion. Included studies were assessed for quality and data were extracted independently by four authors. The primary outcome measure of interest was the overall bowel symptom severity score which combines abdominal pain, diarrhoea or constipation and bloating. Secondary outcomes included abdominal pain, diarrhoea, constipation, bloating, quality of life, patient's overall assessment of well-being, psychological measures as per validated questionnaires, and adverse events. Four studies including a total of 147 patients met the inclusion criteria. Only one study compared hypnotherapy to an alternative therapy (psychotherapy and placebo pill), two studies compared hypnotherapy with waiting-list controls and the final study compared hypnotherapy to usual medical management. Data were not pooled for meta-analysis due to differences in outcome measures and study design. The therapeutic effect of hypnotherapy was found to be superior to that of a waiting list control or usual medical management, for abdominal pain and composite primary IBS symptoms, in the short term in patients who fail standard medical therapy. Harmful side-effects were not reported in any of the trials. However, the results of these studies should be interpreted with caution due to poor methodological quality and small size. The quality of the included trials was inadequate to allow any conclusion about the efficacy of hypnotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome. More research with high quality trials is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 233 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 15%
Student > Master 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Researcher 18 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 6%
Other 47 20%
Unknown 73 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 28%
Psychology 32 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 10%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 79 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2021.
All research outputs
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 88,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 88,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.