Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders seen by clinicians in both primary and secondary care. Since publication of the last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline in 2007, substantial advances have been made in understanding its complex pathophysiology, resulting in its re-classification as a disorder of gut-brain interaction, rather than a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Moreover, there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning the diagnosis, investigation and management of IBS. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based management of patients. One of the strengths of this guideline is that the recommendations for treatment are based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of trial-based and network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy of dietary, pharmacological and psychological therapies in treating IBS. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, summarising both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, this guideline identifies novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need for future research.

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder of gut–brain interaction, affecting approximately 7% of individuals in the community, with most patients managed in primary care. The last British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guideline for the management of dyspepsia was published in 1996. In the interim, substantial advances have been made in understanding the complex pathophysiology of FD, and there has been a considerable amount of new evidence published concerning its diagnosis and classification, with the advent of the Rome IV criteria, and management. The primary aim of this guideline, commissioned by the BSG, is to review and summarise the current evidence to inform and guide clinical practice, by providing a practical framework for evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of patients. The approach to investigating the patient presenting with dyspepsia is discussed, and efficacy of drugs in FD summarised based on evidence derived from a comprehensive search of the medical literature, which was used to inform an update of a series of pairwise and network meta-analyses. Specific recommendations have been made according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. These provide both the strength of the recommendations and the overall quality of evidence. Finally, in this guideline, we consider novel treatments that are in development, as well as highlighting areas of unmet need and priorities for future research.

Various diets are proposed as first-line therapies for non-constipated irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) despite insufficient or low-quality evidence. We performed a randomized trial comparing traditional dietary advice (TDA) against the low FODMAP diet (LFD) and gluten-free diet (GFD). Patients with Rome IV-defined non-constipated IBS were randomized to TDA, LFD, or GFD (the latter allowing for minute gluten cross-contamination). The primary end point was clinical response after 4 weeks of dietary intervention, as defined by ≥50-point reduction in IBS symptom severity score (IBS-SSS). Secondary end points included (1) changes in individual IBS-SSS items within clinical responders, (2) acceptability and food-related quality of life with dietary therapy, (3) changes in nutritional intake, (4) alterations in stool dysbiosis index, and (5) baseline factors associated with clinical response. The primary end point of ≥50-point reduction in IBS-SSS was met by 42% (n = 14/33) undertaking TDA, 55% (n = 18/33) for LFD, and 58% (n = 19/33) for GFD (P = .43). Responders had similar improvements in IBS-SSS items regardless of their allocated diet. Individuals found TDA cheaper (P < .01), less time-consuming to shop (P < .01), and easier to follow when eating out (P = .03) than the GFD and LFD. TDA was also easier to incorporate into daily life than the LFD (P = .02). Overall reductions in micronutrient and macronutrient intake did not significantly differ across the diets. However, the LFD group had the greatest reduction in total FODMAP content (27.7 g/day before intervention to 7.6 g/day at week 4) compared with the GFD (27.4 g/day to 22.4 g/day) and TDA (24.9 g/day to 15.2 g/day) (P < .01). Alterations in stool dysbiosis index were similar across the diets, with 22%-29% showing reduced dysbiosis, 35%-39% no change, and 35%-40% increased dysbiosis (P = .99). Baseline clinical characteristics and stool dysbiosis index did not predict response to dietary therapy. TDA, LFD, and GFD are effective approaches in non-constipated IBS, but TDA is the most patient-friendly in terms of cost and convenience. We recommend TDA as the first-choice dietary therapy in non-constipated IBS, with LFD and GFD reserved according to specific patient preferences and specialist dietetic input. gov: NCT04072991.