Talk:Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth

message: Take a look at Leaky gut syndrome because it seems to be the same issue, albeit in a much smaller, not as well referenced article. Arthurrh 10:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure... leaky gut syndrome appears to lie more in the realm of alternative medicine, as opposed to bacterial overgrowth, which is well described in conventional gastroenterology. -- Samir 04:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand, leaky gut syndrome is not an entity that exists in conventional gastroenterology (I'm just not that familiar with the alternative medicine literature, unfortunately).  A PubMed search on "leaky gut syndrome" reveals nothing in conventional gastroenterology journals; the only descriptors of "leaky gut" in conventional GI reference bacterial translocation through "leaky" cell junctions, rather than overgrowth within the lumen.  Some have hypothesized this for cirrhotics, and others for intestinal permeability in Crohn's (, ) and other transmural diseases of the bowel.  I think it would be best to keep bacterial overgrowth in its own article as a conventional syndrome, and keep "leaky gut syndrome" as an alternative medicine syndrome with its own article. -- Samir 05:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, your link on bacterial overgrowth and IBS is excellent.  There is increasing evidence for antibiotic use in IBS with SBBO-like pathogenesis thought to play a role in symptoms.  We should add this to the article proper also. -- Samir 05:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This article should not be combined with leaky gut. Chemically induced leaky gut is not the same thing as microbe induced leaky gut. Leaky gut due to chemical exposure is fairly well established because most kinds of NSAID cause leaky gut. Chemically induced leaky gut can be treated with steroids. That is very different from bacterial infection. You cannot treat microbe induced leaky gut with steroids because that would make an infection worse. Research from outside the United States indicates intestinal bacteria interact with the nervous system with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and the only way that can happen is if intestines are leaky. That means the intellectual territory of leaky gut spans two independent knowledge zones that are unrelated. One article to cover both knowledge zones is impossible without either ignoring one of the knowledge zones or confusing the reader. Nanoatzin (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Leaky gut syndrome]] 

message: The page title currently being used (Small bowel bacterial overgrowth syndrome)is not the phrase most commonly used in medical literature to discribe the condition being discussed, and its acronym (SBBOS) is rarely seen.  Searching Google Scholar with the term "intestinal" coupled with "SBBOS" produces two hits.  Substituting the acronym SIBO (Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrown) for SBBOS in the same search returns 641 articles.  
In addition, although the acronym SIBO is mentioned in the article, a search of Wikipedia for that term  displays a page about a town in Sweden.
It is plausible that a significant number of potential users interested in this topic would know of it, or at least think/verbalize it, in terms of its acronym.  Changing the article title should increase its usefulness by allowing it to be displayed higher in Google search results, and to be found in Wikipedia searches.
InquiringMind42 00:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% agree, this is the first thing i thought when i read the article. SIBO is the more notable term by which this topic is known. I will request page moveTepi (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion:  Change page title to "Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrown (SIBO)" 

message: ICD-10: K63 and ICD-9: 579.8 do not correspond. The ICD-9 relates to "Other specified intestinal malabsorption" and the ICD-10 code relates to "Other diseases of intestine". ICD-9: 579.8 corresponds to ICD-10 K90.4 "Malabsorption due to intolerance, not elsewhere classified (excluding gluten and lactose intolerance". Changed ICD-10 to K90.4 as malabsorption appears to be more specific than other disease apers0n (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From where do these code suggestions come? I'm not finding anything.--205.175.128.5 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only Apers0n can answer where the K90.4 came from 5 years ago. Today, although it didn't back in 2012, ICD9data.com does list K90.4 as one of two suggested equivalent ICD-10-CM codes for 579.8 today; the other being K90.89 (the 5th character is not available in the base classification). K90.8 appears to be more appropriate, to me at least, given that the malabsorbtion is not due to an intolerance; but the increased bacterial load. Also, the WP article suggests that whilst ISBO causes a cluster of symptoms, not every symptom is present in every patient; so it would only be appropriate to code K90.8 if malabsorbtion had actually manifested. If only small intestinal bacterial overgrowth was stated (i.e. there were no symptoms available to the coder), then using K63.8 would be entirely appropriate unless there was further guidance available (e.g. clinician input, national coding guidelines etc).  K90.4 is the wrong code. K90.8 is more appropriate  malabsorption is a presenting symptom. However; the actual code(s) assigned will depend on the symptoms presenting in each ISBO patient. Little pob (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have boldly changed the code back to K63.8, and given K90.8, among others, to cover the symptoms. However, it might be wise to remove the K90.8, K59.0, R10, R11, and R14 symptom codes, as their presence may cause confusion; both for a novice/entry level coder, as well as anyone looking for codes to run a data dump. Little pob (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICD Codes 

message: change: significanly lower serum albumin concentration. to significantly  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blabber92887 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   typo 

message: The first paragraph of this section states "the best evidence is for the use of norfloxacin and amoxicillin-clavulanate.[41]"
However, both Scarpellini (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03259.x/full) and Pimentel, in more recent studies, claim Rifaximin as the best antibiotic treatment choice. Does anyone better qualified than I have an opinion on this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachdayak (talk • contribs) 06:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible revision of Treatment section. 

message: This article currently describes the state of probiotics research in quite positive terms (e.g. "Probiotics taken in uncomplicated cases of SIBO can usually result in the individual becoming symptom free") but this seems to conflict with the information in the probiotic article, which states "scientific evidence as of 2012 has not confirmed any anti-disease claims or health benefits." One of these articles is apparently overstated. My own nonexpert examination of the literature seems to support the "promising but not confirmed" position; but things may have changed. It would be nice if somebody with medical research credentials could evaluate this situation and indicate the generally-agreed state of the science. When commercial products and strongly-held personal beliefs enter the forum, it is harder to maintain scientific detachment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.79.192 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probiotics