← Issue №6/ week of Aug 9, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Motility, in full.

All 3 Motility papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
Filter

All 3, in full

most clinically useful first · the 1 the issue led with is ruled in green
Motility meta analysis · n=1,904 · Aug 14, 2026 · Gastroenterology · IF 25.1

Fiber supplementation in irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

New evidenceIBSmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider psyllium for IBS patients as a trial therapy. Clinical response (endpoint varies by trial) occurred in 52% vs 44% with placebo, but this did not translate to significant improvement in overall symptom severity scores (SMD −0.25), suggesting the benefit may reside in patient perception or non-severity endpoints rather than objective symptom reduction. Beta-galacto-oligosaccharides (B-GOS) improved overall symptom scores in limited trials (n=2) but did not demonstrate clinical response benefit. Subtype-specific benefits (diarrhea-predominant, constipation-predominant, mixed) are unknown. Clinicians should clarify with patients what outcome they are pursuing before recommending.
What it foundFiber increased clinical response rates to 52% vs 44% with placebo (RR 1.21 [95% CI 1.03-1.41]); psyllium showed greater benefit (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.06-2.19]). Overall symptom severity scores did not improve significantly (SMD -0.25 [95% CI -0.67 to 0.17]).
ContextFiber is widely used and recommended for IBS, but this is the first recent evidence synthesis. The meta-analysis confirms benefit specifically for psyllium over other fiber types. However, the disconnect between improved 'clinical response' and unchanged symptom severity scores suggests the benefit may differ in nature from objective symptom reduction, refining the broad fiber recommendation to a more selective approach.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology (AGA-ACG), 'American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation' (Chang L, et al., Gastroenterology 2023;164(7):1086-1106), 2023

Decision at stakewhether fiber supplementation (and specifically psyllium) is effective for constipation-related symptoms in IBS-C

The guideline attaches several qualifiers that must not be dropped: (1) among the fiber supplements the panel evaluated, psyllium (3 trials), bran (1 trial), inulin (2 trials), methylcellulose (no trials found), only psyllium appears to be effective, with 'very limited and uncertain' data on bran and inulin and no evidence base at all for methylcellulose; (2) there is no clear evidence that soluble or insoluble fiber is more effective for constipation specifically; (3) on implementation, 'fiber supplements can be used as first-line therapy for CIC, particularly for individuals with low dietary fiber intake,' and 'dietary assessment is important to determine total fiber intake from diet and supplements'; (4) 'a trial of fiber supplement can be considered for mild constipation before PEG use or in combination with PEG'; (5) the total daily fiber target cited by the guideline is 20-30 g/day from diet plus supplement, derived from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics figure of 14 g per 1,000 kcal; (6) flatulence is a commonly observed side effect and adequate hydration should be encouraged.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

In adults with chronic idiopathic constipation, the AGA-ACG panel suggests the use of fiber supplementation over management without fiber supplementation. This is a CONDITIONAL recommendation based on LOW certainty of evidence. The guideline attaches several qualifiers that must not be dropped: (1) among the fiber supplements the panel evaluated, psyllium (3 trials), bran (1 trial), inulin (2 trials), methylcellulose (no trials found), only psyllium appears to be effective, with 'very limited and uncertain' data on bran and inulin and no evidence base at all for methylcellulose; (2) there is no clear evidence that soluble or insoluble fiber is more effective for constipation specifically; (3) on implementation, 'fiber supplements can be used as first-line therapy for CIC, particularly for individuals with low dietary fiber intake,' and 'dietary assessment is important to determine total fiber intake from diet and supplements'; (4) 'a trial of fiber supplement can be considered for mild constipation before PEG use or in combination with PEG'; (5) the total daily fiber target cited by the guideline is 20-30 g/day from diet plus supplement, derived from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics figure of 14 g per 1,000 kcal; (6) flatulence is a commonly observed side effect and adequate hydration should be encouraged. Fiber's placement within the guideline's own hierarchy is itself part of the recommendation: polyethylene glycol, bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide and prucalopride carry STRONG recommendations, whereas fiber, magnesium oxide, lactulose, senna and lubiprostone carry CONDITIONAL ones.

American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology (AGA-ACG), 'American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation' (Chang L, et al., Gastroenterology 2023;164(7):1086-1106), 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Staudacher HM … Whelan K · Gastroenterology · IF 25.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Motility retrospective · n=13,330 · Aug 8, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Impact of GLP-1 Analogue Therapy on Gastrointestinal Outcomes in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Real-World TriNetX Analysis.

New evidenceIBSepidemiology
Clinical takeawayWhile this is a large real-world cohort, there is no established clinical action. Outcomes are coded EHR data, not validated IBS symptom scales, and the study is observational without randomization. For patients with IBS and concomitant diabetes or obesity who have independent indication for GLP-1, this suggests possible added benefit on IBS symptoms, but the absolute reductions are modest (1.7-4.2 percentage points) and require prospective confirmation. Do not prescribe GLP-1 for IBS alone.
What it foundGLP-1 receptor agonist initiation was associated with significantly lower 90-day rates of chronic diarrhea (8.9% vs 10.6%), constipation (19.8% vs 22.0%), abdominal pain (31.6% vs 35.8%), and bloating/distension (8.3% vs 10.9%) compared with non-GLP-1 controls in a propensity-matched cohort of 6,665 patients per group (all p < 0.001).
ContextGLP-1 receptor agonists are not currently indicated for IBS. This is the first real-world signal of potential benefit on IBS symptoms when GLP-1 is used for diabetes or obesity. The mechanism aligns with known effects of GLP-1 on gastrointestinal motility and visceral sensitivity, but remains hypothesis-generating and unconfirmed.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Society of Anesthesiologists, 'Practice Advisory for the Perioperative Management of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Including Those Taking GLP-1 Receptor Agonists,' 2023

Decision at stakewhether a history of irritable bowel syndrome should be treated as a perioperative risk factor that influences GLP-1 management decisions

Perioperative management of a patient already taking a GLP-1 receptor agonist should be individualized through shared decision-making among the patient, the prescribing team, the proceduralist/surgeon, and the anesthesiologist, balancing metabolic need against aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Perioperative management of a patient already taking a GLP-1 receptor agonist should be individualized through shared decision-making among the patient, the prescribing team, the proceduralist/surgeon, and the anesthesiologist, balancing metabolic need against aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying. In patients WITHOUT known risk factors for delayed gastric emptying (e.g., pre-existing gastroparesis, diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, prior gastric surgery, or severe GERD), GLP-1RA therapy may be continued preoperatively. When holding is elected, hold the day-of-procedure dose for daily formulations and the dose one week before the procedure for weekly formulations, while acknowledging the guidance states the optimal hold duration is unknown. Regardless of hold status, assess every patient on the day of the procedure for symptoms of delayed gastric emptying (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, distension); if present, manage the patient as a 'full stomach.' For patients WITH known risk factors for delayed gastric emptying, risk-mitigation options include a preoperative clear-liquid diet for at least 24 hours (as in colonoscopy/bariatric prep), point-of-care gastric ultrasound to assess residual gastric contents (limited by resources, inter-user variability, and credentialing), and consideration of rapid-sequence induction versus procedure deferral. The guidance explicitly cautions against reflexively withholding GLP-1RAs only in patients treated for overweight/obesity, which could constitute weight bias. The document does not address whether a GI condition warrants pre-initiation 'GI clearance' before starting a GLP-1RA; that question is not covered by this or any GI society guideline.

American Society of Anesthesiologists, 'Practice Advisory for the Perioperative Management of Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Including Those Taking GLP-1 Receptor Agonists,' 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Khan SA … Dahiya DS · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Motility systematic review · Aug 12, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

The Potential of Complementary and Alternative Therapies in Improving Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Strategies for Long-Term Efficacy.

Basic scienceIBSmicrobiomediet therapy
Clinical takeawayReview proposes mechanisms for CAM in IBS-D without specific protocols or comparative efficacy data. Dietary modification is already standard adjunct; TCM or acupuncture may be discussed with refractory patients based on mechanistic plausibility and preference.
What it foundReview synthesizes literature on traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, and dietary interventions for IBS-D, proposing multi-target mechanisms (gut microbiota modulation, intestinal barrier restoration, visceral hypersensitivity reduction, gut-brain axis regulation) that may provide sustained symptom relief, but reports no quantified efficacy data or comparison to standard therapy.
ContextStandard IBS-D management includes dietary modification, antidiarrheals, antispasmodics, and agents such as linaclotide or alosetron. This review proposes CAM approaches as adjunctive strategies via multiple mechanistic pathways but does not establish comparative outcomes or when to preferentially use them.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome', 2021

Decision at stakewhether to recommend complementary and alternative therapies (traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture) as adjuncts in IBS-D management

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnosis: use a positive diagnostic strategy based on Rome IV criteria rather than a strategy of exclusion (strong for cost-effectiveness, high quality; consensus for time-to-therapy), and categorize by IBS subtype (consensus). In patients with IBS and diarrhea symptoms: check celiac serology (strong, moderate) and, in those WITHOUT alarm features, fecal calprotectin (or fecal lactoferrin) plus CRP to rule out IBD (strong; moderate quality for CRP/calprotectin, very low for lactoferrin). Recommend AGAINST routine stool testing for enteric pathogens (conditional, low) and AGAINST routine colonoscopy in patients younger than 45 without warning signs (conditional, low). Anorectal physiology testing only when symptoms suggest a pelvic floor disorder and/or for refractory constipation not responding to standard medical therapy (consensus). Treatment, all subtypes: soluble, not insoluble, fiber (strong, moderate); a LIMITED trial of a low-FODMAP diet (conditional, very low); gut-directed psychotherapies for global symptoms (conditional, very low); TCAs for global symptoms (strong, moderate); peppermint suggested (conditional, low); antispasmodics for abdominal pain (conditional, low); AGAINST probiotics (conditional, very low), AGAINST fecal transplant (strong, very low). IBS-C: chloride channel activators (strong, moderate) and guanylate cyclase activators (strong, high); AGAINST PEG products for global IBS-C symptoms (conditional, low); tegaserod reserved for women younger than 65 with ≤1 cardiovascular risk factor who have not adequately responded to secretagogues (strong/conditional, low). IBS-D: rifaximin (strong, moderate); alosetron only for women with severe IBS-D who have failed conventional therapy (conditional, low); mixed opioid agonists/antagonists, i.e. eluxadoline (conditional, moderate); AGAINST bile acid sequestrants (conditional, very low).

American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome', 2021 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Deng Y … Chen S · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №6 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Motility by RSS