-
American Journal of Obstetrics and... May 2023Green-stained amniotic fluid, often referred to as meconium-stained amniotic fluid, is present in 5% to 20% of patients in labor and is considered an obstetric hazard.... (Review)
Review
Green-stained amniotic fluid, often referred to as meconium-stained amniotic fluid, is present in 5% to 20% of patients in labor and is considered an obstetric hazard. The condition has been attributed to the passage of fetal colonic content (meconium), intraamniotic bleeding with the presence of heme catabolic products, or both. The frequency of green-stained amniotic fluid increases as a function of gestational age, reaching approximately 27% in post-term gestation. Green-stained amniotic fluid during labor has been associated with fetal acidemia (umbilical artery pH <7.00), neonatal respiratory distress, and seizures as well as cerebral palsy. Hypoxia is widely considered a mechanism responsible for fetal defecation and meconium-stained amniotic fluid; however, most fetuses with meconium-stained amniotic fluid do not have fetal acidemia. Intraamniotic infection/inflammation has emerged as an important factor in meconium-stained amniotic fluid in term and preterm gestations, as patients with these conditions have a higher rate of clinical chorioamnionitis and neonatal sepsis. The precise mechanisms linking intraamniotic inflammation to green-stained amniotic fluid have not been determined, but the effects of oxidative stress in heme catabolism have been implicated. Two randomized clinical trials suggest that antibiotic administration decreases the rate of clinical chorioamnionitis in patients with meconium-stained amniotic fluid. A serious complication of meconium-stained amniotic fluid is meconium aspiration syndrome. This condition develops in 5% of cases presenting with meconium-stained amniotic fluid and is a severe complication typical of term newborns. Meconium aspiration syndrome is attributed to the mechanical and chemical effects of aspirated meconium coupled with local and systemic fetal inflammation. Routine naso/oropharyngeal suctioning and tracheal intubation in cases of meconium-stained amniotic fluid have not been shown to be beneficial and are no longer recommended in obstetrical practice. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials suggested that amnioinfusion may decrease the rate of meconium aspiration syndrome. Histologic examination of the fetal membranes for meconium has been invoked in medical legal litigation to time the occurrence of fetal injury. However, inferences have been largely based on the results of in vitro experiments, and extrapolation of such findings to the clinical setting warrants caution. Fetal defecation throughout gestation appears to be a physiologic phenomenon based on ultrasound as well as in observations in animals.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Meconium Aspiration Syndrome; Meconium; Amniotic Fluid; Chorioamnionitis; Pregnancy Complications; Inflammation; Heme
PubMed: 37012128
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.11.1283 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2015Prevalence of childhood constipation has been estimated at 1% to 30% in the general population worldwide; most children have no obvious aetiological factors. One third... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Prevalence of childhood constipation has been estimated at 1% to 30% in the general population worldwide; most children have no obvious aetiological factors. One third of children with chronic constipation continue to have problems beyond puberty. Half of the children with chronic faecal impaction and faecal incontinence have experienced an episode of painful defecation, and many children with chronic constipation exhibit withholding behaviour.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of fibre for children with chronic constipation? What are the effects of probiotics for children with chronic constipation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 12 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: fibre and probiotics.
Topics: Child; Constipation; Dietary Fiber; Humans; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25758093
DOI: No ID Found -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Aug 2021Functional constipation is a common functional bowel disorder in the community, which has a varying prevalence across cross-sectional surveys. We did a contemporaneous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Functional constipation is a common functional bowel disorder in the community, which has a varying prevalence across cross-sectional surveys. We did a contemporaneous systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using comparable methodology and all iterations of the Rome criteria to estimate the global prevalence of functional constipation.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Embase Classic from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2020, to identify population-based cross-sectional studies comprising at least 50 participants that reported the prevalence of functional constipation in adults (age 18 years and older) according to Rome I, II, III, or IV criteria. We excluded studies that reported the prevalence of functional constipation in convenience samples. We extracted prevalence estimates of functional constipation from eligible studies, according to the study criteria used to define it. For each study, we extracted data for country; method of data collection; criteria used to define functional constipation; whether the study used the Rome I, II, III, or IV diagnostic questionnaires or approximated these definitions of the condition using another questionnaire; the total number of participants providing complete data; age; the number of participants with the condition; the number of male and female participants; and the number of male and female participants with the condition. We calculated pooled prevalence, odds ratios (OR), and 95% CIs.
FINDINGS
Of 8174 citations evaluated, 45 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, representing 80 separate populations and comprising 275 260 participants. The pooled prevalence of functional constipation was 15·3% (95% CI 8·1-24·4, I=99·4%) in studies using the Rome I criteria, 11·2% (7·9-14·9; I=99·6%) in studies that used Rome II criteria, 10·4% (6·5-14·9; I=99·8%) in those that used Rome III criteria, and 10·1% (8·7-11·6; I=98·2%) when Rome IV criteria were used. Prevalence of functional constipation was higher in women, irrespective of the Rome criteria used (OR 2·40 [95% CI 2·02-2·86] for Rome I, 1·94 [1·46-2·57] for Rome II, and 2·32 [1·85-2·92] for Rome III; no studies using Rome IV criteria reported prevalence by sex). There was significant heterogeneity between studies in all of our analyses, which persisted even when the same criteria were applied and similar methodologies used.
INTERPRETATION
Even when uniform symptom-based criteria are used to define the presence of functional constipation, prevalence varies between countries. Thus, environmental, cultural, ethnic, dietary, or genetic factors can influence reporting of symptoms. Future studies should aim to elucidate reasons for this geographical variability.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Constipation; Defecation; Global Health; Humans; Prevalence
PubMed: 34090581
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00111-4 -
The Lancet. Gastroenterology &... Oct 2020Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common functional bowel disorders, but community prevalence appears to vary widely between different countries. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common functional bowel disorders, but community prevalence appears to vary widely between different countries. This variation might be due to the fact that previous cross-sectional surveys have neither applied uniform diagnostic criteria nor used identical methodology, rather than being due to true global variability. We aimed to determine the global prevalence of IBS.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from all population-based studies using relatively uniform methodology and using only the most recent iterations of the Rome criteria (Rome III and IV). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Embase Classic (from Jan 1, 2006, to April 30, 2020) to identify cross-sectional surveys reporting the prevalence of IBS in adults (≥90% of participants aged ≥18 years) according to the Rome III or Rome IV criteria. We also hand-searched a selection of conference proceedings for relevant abstracts published between 2006 and 2019. We extracted prevalence data for all studies, according to the criteria used to define the presence of IBS. We did a meta-analysis to estimate pooled prevalence rates, according to study location and certain other characteristics (eg, sex and IBS subtype).
FINDINGS
We identified 4143 citations, of which 184 studies appeared relevant. 57 of these studies were eligible, and represented 92 separate adult populations, comprising 423 362 participants. The pooled prevalence of IBS in 53 studies that used the Rome III criteria, from 38 countries and comprising 395 385 participants, was 9·2% (95% CI 7·6-10·8; I=99·7%). By contrast, pooled IBS prevalence among six studies that used the Rome IV criteria, from 34 countries and comprising 82 476 individuals, was 3·8% (95% CI 3·1-4·5; I=96·6%). IBS with mixed bowel habit (IBS-M) was the most common subtype with the Rome III criteria, reported by 33·8% (95% CI 27·8-40·0; I=98·1%) of people fulfilling criteria for IBS (ie, 3·7% [2·6-4·9] of all included participants had IBS-M), but IBS with diarrhoea (IBS-D) was the most common subtype with the Rome IV criteria (reported by 31·5% [95% CI 23·2-40·5; I=98·1% 61·6%] of people with IBS, corresponding to 1·4% [0·9-1·9] of all included participants having IBS-D). The prevalence of IBS was higher in women than in men (12·0% [95% CI 9·3-15·0] vs 8·6% [6·3-11·2]; odds ratio 1·46 [95% CI 1·33-1·59]). Prevalence varied substantially between individual countries, and this variability persisted even when the same diagnostic criteria were applied and identical methodology was used in studies.
INTERPRETATION
Even when uniform symptom-based criteria are applied, based on identical methodology, to define the presence of IBS, prevalence varies substantially between countries. Prevalence was substantially lower with the Rome IV criteria, suggesting that these more restrictive criteria might be less suitable than Rome III for population-based epidemiological surveys.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Adult; Cross-Sectional Studies; Defecation; Diarrhea; Female; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Male; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32702295
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30217-X -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2021Constipation is commonly treated with over-the-counter (OTC) products whose efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review of OTC therapies for...
INTRODUCTION
Constipation is commonly treated with over-the-counter (OTC) products whose efficacy and safety remain unclear. We performed a systematic review of OTC therapies for chronic constipation and provide evidence-based recommendations.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials of ≥4-week duration that evaluated OTC preparations between 2004 and 2020. Studies were scored using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria (0-5 scale) including randomization, blinding, and withdrawals. The strengths of evidence were adjudicated within each therapeutic category, and recommendations were graded (A, B, C, D, and I) based on the level of evidence (level I, good; II, fair; or III, poor).
RESULTS
Of 1,297 studies identified, 41 met the inclusion criteria. There was good evidence (grade A recommendation) for the use of the osmotic laxative polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the stimulant senna; moderate evidence (grade B) for psyllium, SupraFiber, magnesium salts, stimulants (bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate), fruit-based laxatives (kiwi, mango, prunes, and ficus), and yogurt with galacto-oligosaccharide/prunes/linseed oil; and insufficient evidence (grade I) for polydextrose, inulin, and fructo-oligosaccharide. Diarrhea, nausea, bloating, and abdominal pain were common adverse events, but no serious adverse events were reported.
DISCUSSION
The spectrum of OTC products has increased and quality of evidence has improved, but methodological issues including variability in study design, primary outcome measures, trial duration, and small sample sizes remain. We found good evidence to recommend polyethylene glycol or senna as first-line laxatives and moderate evidence supporting fiber supplements, fruits, stimulant laxatives, and magnesium-based products. For others, further validation with more rigorously designed studies is warranted.
Topics: Bisacodyl; Cathartics; Chronic Disease; Citrates; Constipation; Defecation; Fruit; Gastrointestinal Agents; Glucans; Humans; Inulin; Laxatives; Magnesium; Nonprescription Drugs; Oligosaccharides; Organometallic Compounds; Picolines; Polyethylene Glycols; Psyllium; Senna Extract; Yogurt
PubMed: 33767108
DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001222 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Aug 2023Postoperative ileus is common after gastrointestinal surgery. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of gum chewing and coffee and caffeine intake... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative ileus is common after gastrointestinal surgery. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of gum chewing and coffee and caffeine intake on ileus-related outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing noninvasive treatments for ileus after gastrointestinal surgery. The main analyses included random effects network meta-analyses using frequentist methods with simultaneous direct and indirect comparisons of time to first flatus, time to first defecation, and length of stay. Bayesian network meta-analysis using Markov chains was also used.
RESULTS
A total of 32 RCTs comparing 4999 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Time to flatus was reduced by gum chewing (mean difference compared to control (MD): -11 h, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) - 16 to - 5 h, P < 0.001). Time to defecation was reduced by gum chewing and coffee, with MDs of -18 h (95% CI - 23 to - 13 h, P < 0.001) and -13 h (95% CI - 24 to - 1 h, P < 0.001), respectively. Length of stay was reduced by coffee and gum chewing with MDs of - 1.5 days (95% CI: - 2.5 to - 0.6 days, P < 0.001) and - 0.9 days (95% CI: - 1.3 to - 0.4 days, P < 0.001), respectively.
CONCLUSION
Coffee and gum chewing were proven to be effective noninvasive approaches for shortening the postoperative length of hospital stay and time to first defecation, especially in open gastrointestinal surgery; thus these actions should be recommended after gastrointestinal surgery.
Topics: Humans; Defecation; Coffee; Network Meta-Analysis; Mastication; Flatulence; Ileus; Postoperative Complications; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Chewing Gum; Length of Stay; Gastrointestinal Motility
PubMed: 37277676
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-023-05702-z -
The Journal of Pediatrics Jan 2022To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nonpharmacologic interventions for the treatment of childhood functional constipation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nonpharmacologic interventions for the treatment of childhood functional constipation.
STUDY DESIGN
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating nonpharmacologic treatments in children with functional constipation which reported at least 1 outcome of the core outcome set for children with functional constipation.
RESULTS
We included 52 RCTs with 4668 children, aged between 2 weeks and 18 years, of whom 47% were females. Studied interventions included gut microbiome-directed interventions, other dietary interventions, oral supplements, pelvic floor-directed interventions, electrical stimulation, dry cupping, and massage therapy. An overall high risk of bias was found across the majority of studies. Meta-analyses for treatment success and/or defecation frequency, including 20 RCTs, showed abdominal electrical stimulation (n = 3), Cassia Fistula emulsion (n = 2), and a cow's milk exclusion diet (n = 2 in a subpopulation with constipation as a possible manifestation of cow's milk allergy) may be effective. Evidence from RCTs not included in the meta-analyses, indicated that some prebiotic and fiber mixtures, Chinese herbal medicine (Xiao'er Biantong granules), and abdominal massage are promising therapies. In contrast, studies showed no benefit for the use of probiotics, synbiotics, an increase in water intake, dry cupping, or additional biofeedback or behavioral therapy. We found no RCTs on physical movement or acupuncture.
CONCLUSIONS
More well-designed high quality RCTs concerning nonpharmacologic treatments for children with functional constipation are needed before changes in current guidelines are indicated.
Topics: Biofeedback, Psychology; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Constipation; Cryotherapy; Diet; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Laxatives; Massage; Phytotherapy; Prebiotics
PubMed: 34536492
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.09.010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Functional constipation is defined as chronic constipation with no identifiable underlying cause. It is a significant cause of morbidity in children, accounting for up to 25% of visits to paediatric gastroenterologists. Probiotic preparations may sufficiently alter the gut microbiome and promote normal gut physiology in a way that helps relieve functional constipation. Several studies have sought to address this hypothesis, as well as the role of probiotics in other functional gut disorders. Therefore, it is important to have a focused review to assess the evidence to date.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the management of chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children.
SEARCH METHODS
On 28 June 2021, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, WHO ICTR, and ClinicalTrials.gov, with no language, date, publication status, or document type limitations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) compared to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in people aged between 0 and 18 years old with a diagnosis of functional constipation according to consensus criteria (such as Rome IV).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (1127 randomised participants): 12 studies assessed probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation, whilst two studies investigated synbiotic preparations. Three studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to the frequency of defecation at study end, but we did not pool them as there was very significant unexplained heterogeneity. Four studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to treatment success. There may be no difference in global improvement/treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.26; 313 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies compared probiotics to placebo in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, with the pooled effect suggesting there may be no difference (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.95; 357 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pooled estimate from three studies that compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone found there may be no difference in frequency of defecation (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.56; 268 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics plus an osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to global improvement/treatment success, and found there may be no difference between the treatments (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies compared probiotics plus osmotic laxative to osmotic laxative alone in relation to withdrawals due to adverse events, but it is unclear if there is a difference between them (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.35; 268 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies compared probiotics versus magnesium oxide. It is unclear if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.14; 36 participants), treatment success (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.57; 36 participants) or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.04; 77 participants). The certainty of the evidence is very low for these outcomes. One study assessed the role of a synbiotic preparation in comparison to placebo. There may be higher treatment success in favour of synbiotics compared to placebo (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.47; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study assessed a synbiotic plus paraffin compared to paraffin alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD 0.74, 95% CI -0.96, 2.44; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or treatment success (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. One study compared a synbiotic preparation to paraffin. It is uncertain if there is a difference in frequency of defecation (MD -1.53, 95% CI -3.00, -0.06; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or in treatment success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65, 1.13; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that there were no withdrawals due to adverse effects in either group. All secondary outcomes were either not reported or reported in a way that did not allow for analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether probiotics are efficacious in successfully treating chronic constipation without a physical explanation in children or changing the frequency of defecation, or whether there is a difference in withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There is limited evidence from one study to suggest a synbiotic preparation may be more likely than placebo to lead to treatment success, with no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to draw efficacy or safety conclusions about the use of probiotics in combination with or in comparison to any of the other interventions reported. The majority of the studies that presented data on serious adverse events reported that no events occurred. Two studies did not report this outcome. Future studies are needed to confirm efficacy, but the research community requires guidance on the best context for probiotics in such studies, considering where they should be best considered in a potential treatment hierarchy and should align with core outcome sets to support future interpretation of findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Constipation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35349168
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014257.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non-opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low-quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale . Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures.We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) -7.92 hours, 95% CI -12.71 to -3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD -4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI -6.25 to -2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes.The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low-quality evidence).IV Lidocaine compared to TEAThe effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI -0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI -1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD -1.66, 95% CI -10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low-quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low-quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Ileus; Lidocaine; Nausea; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 29864216
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009642.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016Constipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives by health professionals to manage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Constipation within childhood is an extremely common problem. Despite the widespread use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives by health professionals to manage constipation in children, there has been a long standing paucity of high quality evidence to support this practice.
OBJECTIVES
We set out to evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic and stimulant laxatives used to treat functional childhood constipation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 10 March 2016. There were no language restrictions. We also searched the references of all included studies, personal contacts and drug companies to identify studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared osmotic or stimulant laxatives to placebo or another intervention, with participants aged 0 to 18 years old were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Relevant papers were identified and two authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials, extracted data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was frequency of defecation. Secondary endpoints included faecal incontinence, disimpaction, need for additional therapies and adverse events. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI using a fixed-effect model. The Chi(2) and I(2) statistics were used to assess statistical heterogeneity. A random-effects model was used in situations of unexplained heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-five RCTs (2310 participants) were included in the review. Fourteen studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. Meta-analysis of two studies (101 patients) comparing polyethylene glycol (PEG) with placebo showed a significantly increased number of stools per week with PEG (MD 2.61 stools per week, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.08). Common adverse events in the placebo-controlled studies included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea and headache. Participants receiving high dose PEG (0.7 g/kg) had significantly more stools per week than low dose PEG (0.3 g/kg) participants (1 study, 90 participants, MD 1.30, 95% 0.76 to 1.84). Meta-analysis of 6 studies with 465 participants comparing PEG with lactulose showed a significantly greater number of stools per week with PEG (MD 0.70 , 95% CI 0.10 to 1.31), although follow-up was short. Patients who received PEG were significantly less likely to require additional laxative therapies. Eighteen per cent (27/154) of PEG patients required additional therapies compared to 31% (47/150) of lactulose patients (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83). No serious adverse events were reported with either agent. Common adverse events in these studies included diarrhoea, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and pruritis ani. Meta-analysis of 3 studies with 211 participants comparing PEG with milk of magnesia showed that the stools per week were significantly greater with PEG (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.89). However, the magnitude of this difference was quite small and may not be clinically significant. One child was noted to be allergic to PEG, but there were no other serious adverse events reported. One study found a significant difference in stools per week favouring milk of magnesia over lactulose (MD -1.51, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.39, 50 patients), Meta-analysis of 2 studies with 287 patients comparing liquid paraffin (mineral oil) with lactulose revealed a relatively large statistically significant difference in the number of stools per week favouring liquid paraffin (MD 4.94 , 95% CI 4.28 to 5.61). No serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events included abdominal pain, distention and watery stools. No statistically significant differences in the number of stools per week were found between PEG and enemas (1 study, 90 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.58 to 3.58), dietary fibre mix and lactulose (1 study, 125 patients, P = 0.481), senna and lactulose (1 study, 21 patients, P > 0.05), lactitol and lactulose (1 study, 51 patients, MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.63 to 1.03), hydrolyzed guar gum and lactulose (1 study, 61 patients, MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.80 to 3.80), PEG and flixweed (1 study, 109 patients, MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.33), PEG and dietary fibre (1 study, 83 patients, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.04), and PEG and liquid paraffin (2 studies, 261 patients, MD 0.35, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.95).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The pooled analyses suggest that PEG preparations may be superior to placebo, lactulose and milk of magnesia for childhood constipation. GRADE analyses indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome (number of stools per week) was low or very low due to sparse data, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and high risk of bias in the studies in the pooled analyses. Thus, the results of the pooled analyses should be interpreted with caution because of quality and methodological concerns, as well as clinical heterogeneity, and short follow-up. There is also evidence suggesting the efficacy of liquid paraffin (mineral oil). There is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of lactulose when compared to the other agents studied, although there is a lack of placebo controlled studies. Further research is needed to investigate the long term use of PEG for childhood constipation, as well as the role of liquid paraffin. The optimal dose of PEG also warrants further investigation.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Constipation; Defecation; Dietary Fiber; Enema; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lactulose; Laxatives; Magnesium Hydroxide; Male; Mineral Oil; Osmosis; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Senna Extract; Sennosides; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27531591
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009118.pub3