Non-pharmacological treatments for adult patients with functional constipation: a systematic review protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological therapies for patients with functional constipation.Methods and analysis
We will electronically search OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, AMED and ISI web of knowledge without any language restrictions. We will also try to obtain literatures from other sources, such as a hand search of library journals or conference abstracts. After searching and screening of the studies, we will run a meta-analysis of the included randomised-controlled trials. We will summarise the results as risk ratio for dichotomous data and standardised or weighted mean difference for continuous data.Dissemination
This systematic review will summarise current evidence for using non-pharmacological therapies to treat functional constipation, and will be disseminated through peer-review publications or conference presentations.Trial registration number
PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014006686.
SUBMITTER: Chen M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4054651 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Non-pharmacological treatments for adult patients with functional constipation: a systematic review protocol.
Chen Min M Zheng Hui H Li Juan J Huang Dequan D Chen Qin Q Fang Jianqiao J
BMJ open 20140605 6
<h4>Introduction</h4>The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological therapies for patients with functional constipation.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>We will electronically search OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, AMED and ISI web of knowledge without any language restrictions. We will also try to obtain literatures from other sources, such as a hand search of library journals or conference abstracts. After searching and screening o ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe global prevalence of Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is estimated to be as high as 15% and a number of different non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments have been used to manage IBS in clinical practice, which poses great challenges for clinicians to make appropriate decisions. Hence, a systematic review and network meta-analysis on all available pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for IBS is needed to provide reliable evidence.MethodsWe will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedical medicine (CBM) from inception to 31, May 2019. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for IBS will be included. Study quality will be assessed on the basis of the methodology and categories described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Primary outcomes are global or clinical improvement and quality of life. A Bayesian network meta-analysis would be performed, and relative ranking of agents would be assessed. A node splitting method will be used to examine the inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons when a loop connecting 3 arms exists.ResultsResearchers will rank the effectiveness and safety of the potentials interventions for IBS according the characteristics of patients by conducting an advanced network meta-analysis based on Bayesian statistical model, and interpret the results by using GRADE approach.ConclusionThe conclusion of our study will provide updated evidence to rank the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for IBS.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not applicable since this study is a network meta-analysis based on published trials.Protocol registration numberCRD42018083844.
| S-EPMC6709000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to summarise the evidence on more than 140 pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for major depressive disorder (MDD) and to evaluate the confidence that patients and clinicians can have in the underlying science about their effects.DesignThis is a review of systematic reviews.Data sourcesThis study used MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Epistemonikos from 2011 up to February 2017 for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials in adult patients with acute-phase MDD.MethodsWe dually reviewed abstracts and full-text articles, rated the risk of bias of eligible systematic reviews and graded the strength of evidence.ResultsNineteen systematic reviews provided data on 28 comparisons of interest. For general efficacy, only second-generation antidepressants were supported with high strength evidence, presenting small beneficial treatment effects (standardised mean difference: -0.35; 95% CI -0.31 to -0.38), and a statistically significantly higher rate of discontinuation because of adverse events than patients on placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.88; 95%?CI 1.0 to 3.28).Only cognitive behavioural therapy is supported by reliable evidence (moderate strength of evidence) to produce responses to treatment similar to those of second-generation antidepressants (45.5% vs 44.2%; RR 1.10; 95%?CI 0.93 to 1.30). All remaining comparisons of non-pharmacological treatments with second-generation antidepressants either led to inconclusive results or had substantial methodological shortcomings (low or insufficient strength of evidence).ConclusionsIn contrast to pharmacological treatments, the majority of non-pharmacological interventions for treating patients with MDD are not evidence based. For patients with strong preferences against pharmacological treatments, clinicians should focus on therapies that have been compared directly with antidepressants.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number: 42016035580.
| S-EPMC5623437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNon-pharmacological treatments are used in the management of irritable bowel syndrome, and their effectiveness has been evaluated in multiple meta-analyses. The robustness of the results in the meta-analyses was not evaluated. We aimed to assess whether there is evidence of diverse biases in the meta-analyses and to identify the treatments without evidence of risk of bias.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus for meta-analyses that evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments. The time of publication will be limited from inception to December 2018. The credibility of the meta-analyses will be evaluated by assessing between-study heterogeneity, small-study effect and excess significance bias. The between-study heterogeneity will be assessed using the Cochrane's Q test, and the extent of the heterogeneity will be classified using the I2 statistics. The existence of a small-study effect in a meta-analysis will be evaluated using the funnel plot method and confirmed by Egger's test. Excess significance bias will be evaluated by comparing the expected number of clinical studies with positive findings with the observed number.Ethics and disseminationNo formal ethical approval is required since we will use publicly available data. We will disseminate the findings of the umbrella review through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42018111516.
| S-EPMC6475190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNon-pharmacological treatments for postpartum depression have been investigated in various systematic reviews, and their efficacy has been evaluated. However, the quality of the evidence as a whole has not been quantified. The quality of this evidence may influence the choice of interventions and even cause misleading clinical decisions. This study aims to provide an objective presentation of the methodological bias and identify treatments supported by solid evidence.Methods and analysisFor the purpose of conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a comprehensive search of the relevant published literature will be conducted in English databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Scopus, as well as in four Chinese databases: the Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wan fang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP Database (VIP). The time of publication will be limited from their inception to 31 May 2022. We will extract the following data from the included literature: title, first author, journal type of included literature, number and sample size, intervention/control measures, outcome indicators and main study outcomes. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 will be used to measure the quality of the methods. In addition, we will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement to evaluate the quality of the reporting, as well as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to evaluate the quality of the evidence.Prospero registration numberCRD42021285470.
| S-EPMC9815009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPubertal gynecomastia (PG), a benign condition with varied reported prevalence, typically appears at 13-14 years-old and is mostly idiopathic and self-limited. Psychologic impairments are common among adolescents with gynecomastia. Surgical intervention is reserved to severe cases and is offered towards the end of puberty. Pharmacological treatment is seldom given by clinicians mainly due to insufficient published data. We conducted this systematic literature review to assess the efficacy, safety, side effects, and complications of pharmacological treatments published.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for the terms "gynecomastia", "pubertal", and "adolescent" in conjunction with medications from the Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulator (SERM), aromatase inhibitors (AI), and androgens groups in different combinations to optimize the search results. Exclusion criteria included: studies based on expert opinion, similar evidence-based medicine levels studies, and studies which discuss gynecomastia in adults. Selected articles were assessed by two authors. Data collected included: the level of evidence, population size, treatment regimen, follow-up, outcomes, complications, and side effects.ResultsOf 1,425 published studies found and examined meticulously by the authors, only 24 publications met all the study research goals. These were divided into 16 publications of patients treated with SERM, of whom four had AI and four androgens. In general, the data regarding pharmacologic therapy for PG is partial, with insufficient evidence-based research. Tamoxifen and SERM drugs have long been used as treatments for PG. Tamoxifen was the chosen drug of treatment in most of the reviewed studies and found to be effective, safe, and with minimal side effects.ConclusionsPharmacological treatment as a new standard of care has an advantage in relieving behavioral and psychological distress. Although high quality publications are lacking, pharmacological intervention with tamoxifen is appropriate in select patients. Conduction large-scale high-quality studies are warranted with various drugs.
| S-EPMC9663914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Functional constipation (FC) is a common digestive system disease, with an uptrend in morbidity and mortality, resulting in huge social and economic losses. Although the guidelines recommend lifestyle intervention as a first-line treatment, lifestyle intervention is not widely used in clinic. Inulin can be used as the basic material of functional food. Clinical studies have shown that inulin supplementation is associated with increased frequency of bowel movements, but has certain side effects. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of inulin in the treatment of FC need to be further evaluated. Methods and analysis We will search Medline, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database and China Biomedical Literature Database. We will also search the China Clinical Trial Registry, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and related conference summaries. This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RevMan V.5.3.5 will be used for analysis. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review will evaluate the efficacy and safety of inulin supplementation for the treatment of FC. All included data will be obtained from published articles, there is no need for the ethical approval, and it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Due to lack of a new systematic review in this field, this study will combine relevant randomised controlled trials to better explore the evidence of inulin supplementation in the treatment of FC and guide clinical practice and clinical research. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020189234.
| S-EPMC8039257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSleep disturbances constitute a common complication in pediatric cancer patients and survivors and are frequently severe enough to warrant treatment. Suboptimal sleep has been associated with decreased emotional well-being and cognitive functioning and increased behavioral problems. Standardized guidelines for non-pharmacological sleep interventions for adults with cancer exist, but no standard of care intervention or standard guidelines are available to guide such intervention in pediatric cancer patients and survivors. Therefore, effective behavioral interventions for improving sleep quality need to be identified. The objective of the review is to evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological sleep interventions on sleep quality in pediatric cancer patients and survivors.MethodsThe review will consider studies that include children and adolescents between 0 and 18 years diagnosed with cancer or who have a history of cancer who have non-respiratory sleep disturbance. We will include experimental and quasi-experimental studies evaluating non-pharmacological interventions such as psychological interventions, technical/device interventions, interventions targeting physical activity, and complementary and alternative medicine interventions (e.g., yoga, massage, music). Interventions involving medications, ingestible supplements, products purported to work through absorption, and medical devices will be excluded. Primary outcome will be sleep quality as measured by methods including retrospective ratings, daily sleep diary, and validated questionnaires. Secondary outcomes will include total sleep time, sleep onset latency, wake after sleep onset, daytime sleepiness, and daytime sleep duration (naps) as measured by retrospective ratings, daily sleep diary, validated questionnaires, and/or actigraphy. Databases will include MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, CINAHL (Ebsco), and PsycINFO (Ovid) and will be queried from database inception to present. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. The study methodological quality will be assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. Data will be extracted and findings pooled and synthesized using a meta-aggregation approach via the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment, and Review of Information (SUMARI). If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g., methodological quality, study design, outcome measures).DiscussionThis systematic review will synthesize and consolidate evidence on existing non-pharmacological interventions to improve sleep in pediatric cancer patients and survivors. Findings may help inform practitioners working with pediatric cancer patients and survivors experiencing sleep disturbances and is intended to identify gaps and opportunities to improve methodical quality of further non-pharmacological sleep intervention research in this population toward developing an eventual standard of care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020200397 .
| S-EPMC8176735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We updated our 2010 systematic review on the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of constipation in children. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases; clinical trial registries; and reference lists of included studies were searched to February 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in children, with no language restriction. The primary outcome measure was treatment success, as defined by the investigators. We included seven RCTs with a total of 515 participants. Included trials were heterogeneous with respect to study population, probiotic strains, dosages, study duration, and follow-up. Pooled results of two RCTs showed no significant difference between the Lactobacillus rhamnosus casei Lcr35 and placebo groups with respect to treatment success. Other probiotics were studied in single trials only. There was no significant difference between the probiotic and control groups with respect to treatment success. While some probiotic strains showed some effects on defecation frequency, none of the probiotics had beneficial effects on frequency of fecal incontinence or frequency of abdominal pain. Adverse events were rare and not serious.Limited evidence does not support the use of any of currently evaluated probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children. What is Known: • Conventional treatment for functional constipation in children does not always provide satisfying improvement. • Probiotics have been suggested as potential treatment modalities for this condition. What is New: • Probiotics are ineffective for the management of functional constipation in children in terms of treatment success, frequency of fecal incontinence, and frequency of abdominal pain.
| S-EPMC5563334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionProcedural anxiety relates to an affective state of anxiety or fear in relation to a medical procedure. Various treatment-related factors may elicit anxiety among oncology patients, including fear of diagnostic imaging (such as MRI scans) and impending treatment and medical procedures (such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy). It is common in oncology settings to manage acute anxiety relating to medical procedures with anxiolytic medication. However, pharmacological approaches are not suitable for many patients. Despite this, non-pharmacological interventions are infrequently used. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether non-pharmacological interventions delivered prior to, or during, radiotherapy are effective in reducing procedural anxiety.Methods and analysisData sources will include the bibliographic databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (from inception onward). Eligible studies will include adult patients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy treatment. Included studies will be those which employ a non-pharmacological intervention, delivered within existing radiotherapy appointments, with the aim of reducing procedural anxiety related to radiotherapy. All research designs with a control or other comparison group will be included. The primary outcome will be change in levels of self-reported procedural anxiety. Secondary outcomes will be changes in scores on physiological measures of anxiety and/or changes in treatment completion and/or changes in treatment duration and/or changes in psychological distress. Two investigators will independently complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. If appropriate, a meta-analyses will be performed. Any important amendments to this protocol will be updated in the PROSPERO registration and documented in the resulting review publication.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are anticipated from this review. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and at conferences by presentation.Systematic review registrationCRD42019112941.
| S-EPMC7549444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A wide range of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for chronic urticaria (CU) have been evaluated in systematic reviews (SRs). We conducted an umbrella review of SRs of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for CU, which allow the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted and thereby provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they need.We included SRs evaluating pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for CU. Comprehensive searches were conducted in 7 bibliographic databases, relevant journals up to July 2018. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies' relevance and quality. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation method was used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and classify the quality of the outcomes.In total, 41 SRs were included. Thirty-seven reviews performed quantitative research syntheses, and 4 reviews performed qualitative research syntheses. The majority of SRs evaluated interventions based on combination therapies, antihistamines, traditional Chinese medicines, autohemotherapy, omalizumab, acupuncture, cyclosporine, and leukotriene receptor antagonist. Positive intervention outcomes were reported in the majority (75.32%) of the reviews. However, the methodological quality and evidence quality of the reviews were generally poor.There is some evidence to support a variety of interventions for CU. However, there was much heterogeneity in evidence quality among SRs. Many of the SRs had methodological weaknesses that make them vulnerable to bias. Moreover, there remained little information on the relative effectiveness of one intervention compared with another. Therefore, further SRs that adherence to strict scientific methods are necessary, and primary studies make comparisons between the different treatment options directly.
| S-EPMC6531058 | biostudies-literature