METHODS: Articles published in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Science Direct from 2005 to 2015 were searched systematically. Studies were included if constipation satisfied the Rome II and or III criteria. Study populations consisted of Asian adults above 18 years old and with sample size above 50.
RESULTS: Of 2812 articles screened, 11 met the eligibility criteria. Constipation among Asian adults was characterized by three core symptoms of 'straining' at 82.8%, 'lumpy and hard stool' at 74.2% and 'sensation of incomplete evacuation' at 68.1% and the least frequent symptom was 'manual maneuver to facilitate defecation' at 23.3%. There was heterogeneity in frequency patterns of core symptoms between different Asian studies but also differences in core symptoms between constipation subtypes of functional constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation.
CONCLUSIONS: In general, Asian adults perceive constipation symptoms in a similar but not equivalent manner to the West. Recognition of core symptoms will increase the diagnostic confidence of constipation and its subtypes but more studies of the various specific Asian populations are needed to address their differences.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to identify risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in older patients.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP databases were searched from their inception to February 2023. Cohort and cross-sectional studies exploring the risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation were included in this systematic review. Odds ratio (OR) values from individual studies were pooled using fixed-effects and random-effects models. In addition, a sensitivity analysis and assessment of publication bias were performed.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis included six studies (n = 1553) on previous abdominal surgery, six studies (n = 1494) on constipation, seven studies (n = 1505) on diabetes, eight studies (n = 2093) on non-compliance with the diet regimen, seven studies (n = 1350) on incomplete intake of laxative, and nine studies (n = 2163) on inadequate exercise during preparation. The pooled analysis showed that history of abdominal surgery (OR = 2.72; 95 % confidence interval, CI: 2.07 to 3.56), constipation (OR = 3.56, 95 % CI: 2.41 to 5.25), diabetes (OR = 2.54, 95 % CI: 1.81 to 3.57), non-compliance with the diet regimen (OR = 2.51, 95 % CI: 1.96 to 3.21), incomplete intake of laxative (OR = 2.43, 95 % CI: 1.60 to 3.67), and inadequate exercise during preparation (OR = 3.13, 95 % CI: 2.39 to 4.11) were independent risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in older patients undergoing colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: Three comorbid factors and three behavioral factors were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation in older adults. This meta-analysis provides valuable information for developing predictive models of poor bowel preparation.
Methods: Patients with chronic constipation (Rome III) were evaluated for DD with HRPT and WM during bearing-down "on-bed" without inflated rectal balloon and "on-commode (toilet)" with 60-mL inflated rectal balloon. Eleven healthy volunteers were also evaluated.
Results: Ninety-three of 117 screened participants (F/M = 77/16) were included. Balloon expulsion time was abnormal (＞ 60 seconds) in 56% (mean 214.4 seconds). A modest correlation between HRPT and WM was observed for sphincter length (R = 0.4) and likewise agreement between dyssynergic subtypes (κ = 0.4). During bearing down, 2 or more anal pressure-segments (distal and proximal) could be appreciated and their expansion measured with HRPT but not WM. In constipated vs healthy participants, the proximal segment was more expanded (2.0 cm vs 1.0 cm, P = 0.003) and of greater pressure (94.8 mmHg vs 54.0 mmHg, P = 0.010) during bearing down on-commode but not on-bed.
Conclusions: Because of its better resolution, HRPT may identify more structural and functional abnormalities including puborectal dysfunction (proximal expansion) than WM. Bearing down on-commode with an inflated rectal balloon may provide additional dimension in characterizing DD.
OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TES when employed to improve bowel function and constipation-related symptoms in children with constipation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) (1950 to July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 2015), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, trial registries and conference proceedings to identify applicable studies .
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that assessed any type of TES, administered at home or in a clinical setting, compared to no treatment, a sham TES, other forms of nerve stimulation or any other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical measures used to treat constipation in children were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical outcomes data and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: One study from Australia including 46 children aged 8 to 18 years was eligible for inclusion. There were multiple reports identified, including one unpublished report, that focused on different outcomes of the same study. The study had unclear risk of selection bias, high risks of performance, detection and attrition biases, and low risks of reporting biases.There were no significant differences between TES and the sham control group for the following outcomes: i).number of children with > 3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53, one study, 42 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision ), ii). number of children with improved colonic transit assessed radiologically (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.63; one study, 21 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). However, mean colonic transit rate, measured as the position of the geometric centre of the radioactive substance ingested along the intestinal tract, was significantly higher in children who received TES compared to sham (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; one study, 30 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias , serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of children with improved soiling-related symptoms (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.00; one study, 25 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). There was no significant difference in the number of children with improved quality of life (QoL) (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40; one study, 16 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias issues and serious imprecision ). There were also no significant differences in in self-perceived (MD 5.00, 95% CI -1.21 to 11.21) or parent-perceived QoL (MD -0.20, 95% CI -7.57 to 7.17, one study, 33 participants for both outcomes) (QUALITY OF EVIDENCE for both outcomes: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). No adverse effects were reported in the included study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The very low quality evidence gathered in this review does not suggest that TES provides a benefit for children with chronic constipation. Further randomized controlled trials assessing TES for the management of childhood constipation should be conducted. Future trials should include clear documentation of methodologies, especially measures to evaluate the effectiveness of blinding, and incorporate patient-important outcomes such as the number of patients with improved CSBM, improved clinical symptoms and quality of life.
METHODOLOGY: This was a prospective observational study. Convenience sampling method was used to recruit all HD patients who had definitive pullthrough from January 2019 to December2020 in our institution. High-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) was used to record anal resting pressure (ARP), length of high-pressure zone (HPZ), and presence/absence of recto-anal inhibitory reflex (RAIR). The Paediatric Incontinence/Constipation Scoring System (PICSS) was scored for all participants. PICSS is a validated questionnaire with scores mapped to an age-specific normogram to denote constipation, incontinence, and their combinations. Non-parametric and chi-square tests at significance p<0.05 were conducted to examine the relationship between PICSS categories and manometry findings. Ethical approval was obtained.
RESULTS: There were 32 participants (30 boys). Median age at participation was 26.5 months (range: 13.8-156). Twenty-four (75%) had transanal pullthrough, 8(25%) underwent Duhamel procedure. PICSS scored 10(31.3%) as normal, 8(25%) as constipation, 10(31.3%) as incontinent, and 4(12.5%) as mixed. RAIR was present in 12 patients (37.5%). HPZ, maximum ARP, mean ARP were comparable across all PICSS groups without statistically significant differences. Presence of RAIR was not significantly associated with any PICSS groups (p = 0.13).
CONCLUSION: Bowel function does not appear to be significantly associated with HRAM findings after definitive pullthrough for HD, but our study is limited by small sample size. RAIR was present in 37.5% patients after pullthrough.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TES when employed to improve bowel function and constipation-related symptoms in children with constipation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) (1950 to July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 2015), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, trial registries and conference proceedings to identify applicable studies .
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that assessed any type of TES, administered at home or in a clinical setting, compared to no treatment, a sham TES, other forms of nerve stimulation or any other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical measures used to treat constipation in children were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical outcomes data and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes assessed in this review using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: One study from Australia including 46 children aged 8 to 18 years was eligible for inclusion. There were multiple reports identified, including one unpublished report, that focused on different outcomes of the same study. The study had unclear risk of selection bias, high risks of performance, detection and attrition biases, and low risks of reporting biases.We are very uncertain about the effects of TES on bowel movements, colonic transit, soiling symptoms and quality of life due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision. For our outcomes of interest the 95% CI of most analysis results include potential benefit and no effect. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of TES on bowel movements and colonic transit. The study reported that 16/21 children in the TES group and 15/21 in the sham group had > 3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; very low-quality evidence). Ten out of 14 children in the TES group had improved colonic transit compared to 1/7 in the sham group (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.63; very low-quality evidence). Mean colonic transit rate, measured as the position of the geometric centre of the radioactive substance ingested along the intestinal tract, was higher in children who received TES compared to sham (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; one study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). The radiological assessment of colonic transit outcomes means that these results might not translate to important improvement in clinical symptoms or increased bowel movements. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of TES on symptoms and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Nine out of 13 children in the TES group had improved soiling-related symptoms compared to 4/12 sham participants (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.00; very low-quality evidence). Four out of 8 TES participants reported an improvement in QoL compared to 1/8 sham participants (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40; very low-quality evidence). The effects of TES on self-perceived (MD 5.00, 95% CI -1.21 to 11.21; one study, 33 participants; very low-quality evidence) or parent-perceived QoL (MD -0.20, 95% CI -7.57 to 7.17, one study, 33 participants; very low-quality evidence) are uncertain. No adverse effects were reported in the included study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of TES in children with chronic constipation can be drawn. Further randomized controlled trials assessing TES for the management of childhood constipation should be conducted. Future trials should include clear documentation of methodologies, especially measures to evaluate the effectiveness of blinding, and incorporate patient-important outcomes such as the number of patients with improved CSBM, improved clinical symptoms and quality of life.
METHOD: A longitudinal study of consecutive adult patients with various DGBI attending this institution's gastroenterology clinic was conducted. Following 2 years of treatment, the proportion of patients with symptom improvement, details of clinical therapy, factors associated with and the impact of 'no symptom improvement' were determined.
RESULTS: A total of 289 patients (median age 68 years; 64.7% females; 28.4% irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), 20.1% functional dyspepsia (FD), 8.7% functional constipation (FC), 42.9% overlap syndrome) were recruited. After 2 years, 66.1% patients reported symptom improvement. Patients with overlap syndrome were less likely to have symptomatic improvement compared to those with a single DGBI (Overlap 55.6% vs IBS 74.4% vs FD 72.4% vs FC 76.0%, p = 0.014). Reassurance was associated with symptom improvement (p
OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TES when employed to improve bowel function and constipation-related symptoms in children with constipation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) (1950 to July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 2015), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, trial registries and conference proceedings to identify applicable studies .
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that assessed any type of TES, administered at home or in a clinical setting, compared to no treatment, a sham TES, other forms of nerve stimulation or any other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical measures used to treat constipation in children were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical outcomes data and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: One study from Australia including 46 children aged 8 to 18 years was eligible for inclusion. There were multiple reports identified, including one unpublished report, that focused on different outcomes of the same study. The study had unclear risk of selection bias, high risks of performance, detection and attrition biases, and low risks of reporting biases.There were no significant differences between TES and the sham control group for the following outcomes: i).number of children with > 3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53, one study, 42 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision ), ii). number of children with improved colonic transit assessed radiologically (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.63; one study, 21 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). However, mean colonic transit rate, measured as the position of the geometric centre of the radioactive substance ingested along the intestinal tract, was significantly higher in children who received TES compared to sham (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; one study, 30 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias , serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of children with improved soiling-related symptoms (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.00; one study, 25 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). There was no significant difference in the number of children with improved quality of life (QoL) (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40; one study, 16 participants) (Quality of evidence: very low, due to high risk of bias issues and serious imprecision ). There were also no significant differences in in self-perceived (MD 5.00, 95% CI -1.21 to 11.21) or parent-perceived QoL (MD -0.20, 95% CI -7.57 to 7.17, one study, 33 participants for both outcomes) (Quality of evidence for both outcomes: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). No adverse effects were reported in the included study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results for the outcomes assessed in this review are uncertain. Thus no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of TES in children with chronic constipation can be drawn. Further randomized controlled trials assessing TES for the management of childhood constipation should be conducted. Future trials should include clear documentation of methodologies, especially measures to evaluate the effectiveness of blinding, and incorporate patient-important outcomes such as the number of patients with improved CSBM, improved clinical symptoms and quality of life.
METHODS: With ethical approval, this was a cross-sectional study involving 5 paediatric surgery referral centres in Malaysia, comparing the Kelly, Japanese Study Group of Anorectal Anomalies (JSGA), Holschneider and Krickenbeck bowel function questionnaires. We recruited patients aged 4-17 years, who had completed definitive surgery & stoma closure (where relevant) > 12 months prior to participation. We standardised outcomes of each scoring system into categories ('good', 'fair', 'poor' and 'very poor') to facilitate comparison. Parents & patients were surveyed and asked to rate the ease of understanding of each questionnaire. The difference in protocol scores rated between parents and patients were compared. Association of each bowel function scoring protocol with type of anomaly was assessed. Statistical significance was p
METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-center trial, 280 patients with PD were screened, and 72 eligible patients were block-randomized (1:1) to receive either multistrain probiotics capsules (n = 34) or identical-appearing placebo (n = 38), for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the average number of spontaneous bowel movements (SBM) per week during the last 2 weeks of intervention compared with the 2-week preintervention phase, recorded by daily stool diary. Secondary outcome measures included changes in stool consistency, constipation severity score, and quality of life related to constipation. Satisfaction with intervention received was assessed. Change in levels of fecal calprotectin, a marker of intestinal inflammation, was an exploratory outcome.
RESULTS: SBM increased by 1.0 ± 1.2 per week after treatment with probiotics and decreased by 0.3 ± 1.0 per week in the placebo group (mean difference 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.8-1.8, p < 0.001). Significant improvements were also seen for secondary outcomes after correction for multiple comparisons, including stool consistency (p = 0.009) and quality of life related to constipation (p = 0.001). In the treatment group, 65.6% reported satisfaction with the intervention vs only 21.6% in the placebo group (p < 0.001). One patient (2.9%) in the treatment group withdrew due to a nonserious adverse event. Fecal calprotectin did not change significantly during the study.
CONCLUSIONS: Multistrain probiotics treatment was effective for constipation in PD. Further studies are needed to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of probiotics in PD, as well as their mechanisms of action.
CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03377322.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that, for people with PD, multistrain probiotics significantly increased the average number of SBM per week.
METHODS: Children with treatment-resistant constipation presenting to a tertiary hospital had gastrointestinal nuclear transit study (NTS) showing normal proximal colonic transit and anorectal holdup of tracer. TES was administered at home (1 hour/day for 3 months) using a battery-powered interferential stimulator, with four adhesive electrodes (4 × 4 cm) connected so currents cross within the lower abdomen at the level of S2-S4. Stimulation was added to existing laxatives. Daily continence diary, and quality-of-life questionnaires (PedsQL4.0) were compared before and after TES.
RESULTS: Ten children (4 females: 5-10 years, mean 8 years) had holdup in the anorectum by NTS. Nine had <3 bowel motions (BM)/week. After three months TES, defecation frequency increased in 9/10 (mean 0.9-4.1 BM/week, p = 0.004), with 6/9 improved to ≥3 BM/week. Soiling reduced in 9/10 from 5.9 to 1.9 days/week with soiling, p = 0.004. Ten were on laxatives, and nine reduced/stopped laxative use. Quality-of-life improved to within the normal range.
CONCLUSION: TES improved symptoms of constipation in >50% of children with treatment-resistant constipation with isolated holdup in the anorectum. Further studies (RCTs) are warranted in these children.