-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2010Although there are defined criteria for the diagnosis of constipation, in practice, diagnostic criteria are less rigid, and depend in part on the perception of normal... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Although there are defined criteria for the diagnosis of constipation, in practice, diagnostic criteria are less rigid, and depend in part on the perception of normal bowel habit. Constipation is highly prevalent, with approximately 12 million general practitioner prescriptions for laxatives in England in 2001.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug interventions, bulk-forming laxatives, faecal softeners, stimulant laxatives, osmotic laxatives, prostaglandin derivatives, and 5-HT4 agonists in adults with idiopathic chronic constipation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2009 (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 51systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational 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: arachis oil, biofeedback, bisacodyl, cascara, docusate, exercise, glycerol/glycerine suppositories, high-fibre diet, increasing fluids, ispaghula husk, lactitol, lactulose, lubiprostone, macrogols (polyethylene glycols), magnesium salts, methylcellulose, paraffin, phosphate enemas, seed oils, senna, sodium citrate enemas, prucalopride, and sterculia.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Constipation; Defecation; Humans; Lactulose; Laxatives; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21418672
DOI: No ID Found -
Nutrients Jun 2022Nutritional ergogenic aids (NEAs) are substances included within the group of sports supplements. Although they are widely consumed by athletes, evidence-based analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Nutritional ergogenic aids (NEAs) are substances included within the group of sports supplements. Although they are widely consumed by athletes, evidence-based analysis is required to support training outcomes or competitive performance in specific disciplines. Combat sports have a predominant use of anaerobic metabolism as a source of energy, reaching peak exertion or sustained effort for very short periods of time. In this context, the use of certain NEAs could help athletes to improve their performance in those specific combat skills (i.e., the number of attacks, throws and hits; jump height; and grip strength, among others) as well as in general physical aspects (time to exhaustion [TTE], power, fatigue perception, heart rate, use of anaerobic metabolism, etc.). Medline/PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO were searched from their inception to May 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Out of 677 articles found, 55 met the predefined inclusion criteria. Among all the studied NEAs, caffeine (5-10 mg/kg) showed strong evidence for its use in combat sports to enhance the use of glycolytic pathways for energy production during high-intensity actions due to a greater production of and tolerance to blood lactate levels. In this regard, abilities including the number of attacks, reaction time, handgrip strength, power and TTE, among others, were improved. Buffering supplements such as sodium bicarbonate, sodium citrate and beta-alanine may have a promising role in high and intermittent exertion during combat, but more studies are needed in grappling combat sports to confirm their efficacy during sustained isometric exertion. Other NEAs, including creatine, beetroot juice or glycerol, need further investigation to strengthen the evidence for performance enhancement in combat sports. Caffeine is the only NEA that has shown strong evidence for performance enhancement in combat sports.
Topics: Athletes; Athletic Performance; Caffeine; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Performance-Enhancing Substances; Sports Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
PubMed: 35807770
DOI: 10.3390/nu14132588 -
United European Gastroenterology Journal Nov 2017An effective and tolerable bowel preparation is important to secure quality of colonoscopies. It remains unclear if sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC),... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
An effective and tolerable bowel preparation is important to secure quality of colonoscopies. It remains unclear if sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), which is considered a tolerable bowel preparation agent, is also an effective alternative for polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate (NaP).
AIM
The aim of this article is to compare effectiveness of SPMC to PEG and NaP through assessment of quality of bowel cleansing measured by validated tools.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases up to January 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two authors independently performed selection of studies, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs were included, with overall good quality, but large heterogeneity. SPMC had slightly better quality of bowel cleansing than PEG (pooled RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11). In most trials SPMC was significantly better tolerated than PEG. There were no significant differences in effectiveness or tolerability between SPMC and NaP. Side effects were similar between agents, except for dizziness (pooled RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21 in favour of PEG vs. SPMC) and vomiting (pooled RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.95 in favour of single-dose SPMC vs. split-dose).
CONCLUSIONS
SPMC is equally effective to NaP and little superior to PEG in terms of bowel cleansing. SPMC preparations were better tolerated than PEG preparations. SPMC may be considered as standard bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
PubMed: 29163958
DOI: 10.1177/2050640616684696 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2007Although there are defined criteria for the diagnosis of constipation, in practice, diagnostic criteria are less rigid, and in part depend on the perception of normal... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Although there are defined criteria for the diagnosis of constipation, in practice, diagnostic criteria are less rigid, and in part depend on the perception of normal bowel habit. Constipation is highly prevalent, with approximately 12 million general practitioner prescriptions for laxatives in England in 2001.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug interventions, and of other interventions, in adults with idiopathic chronic constipation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2006 (BMJ 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 42 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational 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: arachis oil, biofeedback, bisacodyl, cascara, docusate, exercise, glycerine suppositories, glycerol, high-fibre diet, increasing fluids, ispaghula husk, lactitol, lactulose, macrogols (polyethylene glycols), magnesium salts, methylcellulose, paraffin, phosphate enemas, seed oils, senna, sodium citrate enemas, sterculia.
Topics: Adult; Biofeedback, Psychology; Bisacodyl; Constipation; Defecation; Humans; Polyethylene Glycols
PubMed: 19454117
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2010Constipation is reported in 52% of people with advanced malignancy. This figure rises to 87% in people who are terminally ill and taking opioids. Constipation may be the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Constipation is reported in 52% of people with advanced malignancy. This figure rises to 87% in people who are terminally ill and taking opioids. Constipation may be the most common adverse effect of opioids. There is no reason to believe that people with chronic non-malignant disease who take opioids will be any less troubled by this adverse effect.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of: oral laxatives, rectally applied medications, and opioid antagonists for constipation in people prescribed opioids? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2009 (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 23 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational 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: arachis oil enemas, bisacodyl, co-danthrusate/co-danthramer, docusate, glycerol suppositories, ispaghula husk, lactulose, liquid paraffin, macrogols plus electrolyte solutions, magnesium salts, methylcellulose, opioid antagonists, phosphate enemas, senna, sodium citrate micro-enema, and sodium picosulfate.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Constipation; Dioctyl Sulfosuccinic Acid; Humans; Lactulose; Laxatives
PubMed: 21718572
DOI: No ID Found -
Endoscopy International Open Nov 2021Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC) in specific clinical settings. High completion rates (CRs) and adequate cleanliness... (Review)
Review
Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is an alternative to conventional colonoscopy (CC) in specific clinical settings. High completion rates (CRs) and adequate cleanliness rates (ACRs) are fundamental quality parameters if CCE is to be widely implemented as a CC equivalent diagnostic modality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of different bowel preparations regimens on CR and ACR in CCE. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data were independently extracted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The primary outcome measures (CR, ACR) were retrieved from the individual studies and pooled event rates were calculated. Thirty-four observational (OBS) studies (n = 3,789) and 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (n = 1,214) comprising a total 5,003 patients were included. The overall CR was 0.798 (95 % CI, 0.764-0.828); the highest CRs were observed with sodium phosphate (NaP) + gastrografin booster (n = 2, CR = 0.931, 95 % CI, 0.820-0.976). The overall ACR was 0.768 (95 % CI, 0.735-0.797); the highest ACRs were observed with polyethylene glycol (PEG) + magnesium citrate (n = 4, ER = 0.953, 95 % CI, 0.896-0.979). In the largest meta-analysis on CCE bowel preparation regimens, we found that both CRs and ACRs are suboptimal compared to the minimum recommended standards for CC. PEG laxative and NaP booster were the most commonly used but were not associated with higher CRs or ACRs. Well-designed studies on CCE should be performed to find the optimal preparation regimen.
PubMed: 34790528
DOI: 10.1055/a-1529-5814 -
Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology... May 2022To compare the effectiveness, tolerability, acceptability, and safety of sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (PS/Mg) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in children...
PURPOSE
To compare the effectiveness, tolerability, acceptability, and safety of sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (PS/Mg) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in children (≤18 years) preparing for colonoscopy.
METHODS
Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched till July 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. At least two authors independently selected studies and performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
RESULTS
Four RCTs (n=390), with overall good quality were included. A meta-analysis of two trials (n=224) found no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to the proportion of patients who had excellent and good scores (≥6 points) according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (relative risk: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90 to 1.08). Excellent and good scores were observed in both groups in approximately 90% of children. A meta-analysis of two other trials (n=150) showed no significant difference between the groups with respect to the mean total score for the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (mean difference: 0.20; 95% CI: -0.74 to 1.14). Both regimens provided a comparable safety profile; however, PS/Mg was significantly superior to high volume PEG in terms of tolerability (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating/flatulence/fullness) and acceptability (ease of formulation consumption, taste acceptance, need for nasogastric tube, compliance with full dose).
CONCLUSION
PS/Mg provides a quality and safety profile similar to PEG for bowel cleansing; however, it has better acceptance and tolerance in children preparing for colonoscopy.
PubMed: 35611374
DOI: 10.5223/pghn.2022.25.3.228 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Kidney stones affect people worldwide and have a high rate of recurrence even with treatment. Recurrences are particularly prevalent in people with low urinary citrate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Kidney stones affect people worldwide and have a high rate of recurrence even with treatment. Recurrences are particularly prevalent in people with low urinary citrate levels. These people have a higher incidence of calcium phosphate and calcium oxalate stones. Oral citrate therapy increases the urinary citrate levels, which in turn binds with calcium and inhibits the crystallisation thus reduces stone formation. Despite the widespread use of oral citrate therapy for prevention and treatment of calcium oxalate stones, the evidence to support its clinical efficacy remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse events associated with citrate salts for the treatment and prevention of calcium containing kidney stones.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 29 July 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy and adverse events associated with citrate salts for the treatment and prevention of calcium containing kidney stones in adults treated for a minimum of six months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors assessed studies for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted according to predetermined criteria. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies that included a total of 477 participants, most of whom had oxalate stones. Of these, three studies (247 participants) compared potassium citrate with placebo or no intervention; three (166 participants) compared potassium-sodium citrate with no intervention; and one (64 participants) compared potassium-magnesium citrate with placebo. Overall, quality of the reporting of the included studies was considered moderate to poor, and there was a high risk of attrition bias in two studies.Compared with placebo or no intervention, citrate therapy significantly reduced the stone size (4 studies, 160 participants: RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.05). New stone formation was significantly lower with citrate therapy compared to control (7 studies, 324 participants: RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68). The beneficial effect on stone size stability was also evident (4 studies, 160 participants: RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.26). Adverse events were reported in four studies, with the main side effects being upper gastrointestinal disturbance and one patient reported a rash. There were more gastrointestinal adverse events in the citrate group; however this was not significant (4 studies, 271 participants: RR 2.55, 95% CI 0.71 to 9.16). There were significantly more dropouts due to adverse events with citrate therapy compared to control (4 studies, 271 participants: RR 4.45, 95% CI 1.28 to 15.50). The need for retreatment was significantly less with citrate therapy compared to control (2 studies, 157 participants: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.89).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Citrate salts prevent new stone formation and reduce further stone growth in patients with residual stones that predominantly contain oxalate. The quality of reported literature remains moderate to poor; hence a well-designed statistically powered multi-centre RCT is needed in order to answer relevant questions concerning the efficacy of citrate salts.
Topics: Adult; Calcium Oxalate; Calcium Phosphates; Citrates; Drug Combinations; Humans; Kidney Calculi; Magnesium Compounds; Potassium Compounds; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 26439475
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010057.pub2 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Feb 2007There are many published trials of colon cleansing regimens for colonoscopy but no clear consensus regarding relative performance. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are many published trials of colon cleansing regimens for colonoscopy but no clear consensus regarding relative performance.
AIM
To identify high quality controlled trials comparing two or more bowel preparation regimens and to compare efficacy and tolerability.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic review was carried out to identify candidate studies. Quality appraisal was carried out on all identified studies. Results were meta-analysed where possible and qualitatively compared if not.
RESULTS
Eighty-two studies qualified for analysis. Polyethylene glycol and sodium phosphate were the most frequently investigated preparations. There was no significant efficacy difference between the two, but sodium phosphate was better tolerated. Sodium picosulphate/magnesium citrate, a commonly prescribed preparation, was investigated in four studies, with no clear benefit over other regimens demonstrated. Safety was not recognized as a problem in the randomized controlled trials. Published case series demonstrate that sodium phosphate is associated with the highest risk of clinically significant electrolyte disturbances.
CONCLUSION
Shortcomings in study design limit the value of many of the studies. Based on these results, no single bowel preparation emerges as consistently superior. New preparations are required that combine better efficacy and tolerability, in addition to rigorous new validated study designs, allowing unequivocal comparisons to be made.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cathartics; Colonoscopy; Humans; Phosphates; Polyethylene Glycols; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 17269992
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03212.x -
Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal... Jan 2022High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.
RESULTS
Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.
CONCLUSION
Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.
Topics: Adenoma; Ascorbic Acid; Cathartics; Colonoscopy; Humans; Polyethylene Glycols
PubMed: 33991373
DOI: 10.1111/den.14015