...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Pediatrics >Efficacy of Non-pharmacologic Auxiliary Treatments in Improving Defecation Function in Children With Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
【24h】

Efficacy of Non-pharmacologic Auxiliary Treatments in Improving Defecation Function in Children With Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

机译:非药剂学辅助治疗在提高慢性特发性便秘儿童排便功能中的疗效:系统审查与网络荟萃分析

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background: Non-pharmacologic auxiliary treatments have been considered crucial therapies for treating chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) during the past decades worldwide. Several treatment patterns are available, but their relative efficacy is obscure because there are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials, especially in children. We conducted this network meta-analysis to evalute the effectiveness of these therapies in improving defecation function based on their direct comparisons with standard medical care. Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English from inception to October 2020, assessing the efficacy of auxiliary therapies (behavior therapy, physiotherapy, biofeedback, or anorectal manometry) in children with CIC. We extracted data for endpoints, risk of bias, and evidence quality. Eligible studies in the meta-analysis reported the data of a dichotomous assessment of overall response to treatment (response or not) or defecation frequency per week after treatment. The hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis was used in the study. We chose a conservative methodology, random effects model, to pool data which could handle the heterogeneity well. The relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous results, weighted mean difference (WMD) with related CIs was calculated. The included treatments were ranked to define the probability of being the best treatment. Results: Seven RCTs (838 patients) met inclusion and endpoint criteria. Based on an endpoint of the absence of constipation (Rome criteria) with laxatives allowed, physiotherapy plus standard medical care (SMC) had the highest probability (84%) to bethe most effective therapy. When the treatment response was defined as an absence of constipation with not laxatives allowed, biofeedback plus SMC ranked first (probability 52%). Physiotherapy plus SMC ranked first when the endpoint was based on defecation frequency per week with laxatives allowed (probability 86%). Conclusion: Almost all auxiliary therapies are effective complementary therapies for treating CIC, but they needed to be used simultaneously with SMC. Nevertheless, because of the small number of eligible studies and their small sample sizes, the differences in treatment duration and the endpoints, large sample RCTs with long-term follow-up are required for further investigation.
机译:背景:非药理学辅助治疗被认为是在全世界过去几十年中治疗慢性特发性便秘(CIC)的关键疗法。有几种治疗模式可用,但它们的相对疗效是模糊的,因为没有头脑的随机对照试验,特别是在儿童中。我们进行了该网络荟萃分析,以评估这些疗法在改善排便功能方面的有效性,基于其与标准医疗的直接比较。方法:搜索Medline,Embase和Cochrane Central,从20020年10月开始,用英语发布的随机对照试验(RCT),评估辅助疗法(行为治疗,物理疗法,生物融产或肛肠体重)在CIC儿童中的疗效。我们提取了终点,偏见风险和证据质量的数据。荟萃分析中的符合条件的研究报告了治疗后每周治疗(反应或不)或排便频率的二分法评估的数据。在研究中使用了分层贝叶斯网络元分析。我们选择了保守的方法,随机效果模型,池数据可以很好地处理异质性。计算具有95%置信区间(CIS)的相对风险(RR)用于二分法结果。对于连续结果,计算具有相关顺应性的加权平均差异(WMD)。所包含的治疗被评为确定作为最佳治疗的可能性。结果:七个RCT(838名患者)符合纳入和终点标准。基于允许泻药缺乏的终点(罗马标准),物理疗法加标准医疗保健(SMC)的概率最高(84%),最有效的治疗。当治疗反应被定义为不允许没有泻药的便秘时,生物反馈加上SMC排名第一(概率52%)。当端点基于每周允许泻药(概率86%)时,物理疗法加上SMC排名第一。结论:几乎所有辅助疗法都是治疗CIC的有效互补疗法,但它们需要与SMC同时使用。然而,由于少数合格研究和它们的小样本尺寸,治疗持续时间和终点的差异,需要长期进行的大型样本RCT进行进一步调查。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号