How Can We Treat If We Do Not Measure: A Systematic Review of Neurogenic Bowel Objective Measures

Argy Stampas, Amisha Patel, Komal Luthra, Madeline Dicks, Radha Korupolu, Leila Neshatian, George Triadafilopoulos
{"title":"How Can We Treat If We Do Not Measure: A Systematic Review of Neurogenic Bowel Objective Measures","authors":"Argy Stampas, Amisha Patel, Komal Luthra, Madeline Dicks, Radha Korupolu, Leila Neshatian, George Triadafilopoulos","doi":"10.46292/sci23-00065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Guidelines fail to recommend objective measures to assist with treatment of neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) in spinal cord injury (SCI).\n \n \n \n The main objective was to review the literature to identify the objective measures used in all NBD populations and to present their results and any correlations performed to validated subjective measures.\n \n \n \n A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with PRISMA (2020) guidelines, including all records from January 2012 to May 2023 with MeSH terms like “neurogenic bowel” indexed in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Abstracts were excluded if they did not include objective measures or if they only mentioned the esophagus, stomach, and/or small bowel. Records were screened independently by at least two collaborators, and differences were resolved by unanimous agreement.\n \n \n \n There were 1290 records identified pertaining to NBD. After duplicates were removed, the remaining records were screened for a total of 49 records. Forty-one records (82%) included subjective measures. Two-thirds of the articles involved the population with SCI/disease (n = 552) and one-third were non-SCI NBD (n = 476). Objective measures were categorized as (1) transit time, (2) anorectal physiology testing, and (3) miscellaneous. Of the 38 articles presenting results, only 16 (42%) performed correlations of objective measures to subjective measures.\n \n \n \n There is an abundance of literature supporting the use of objective outcome measures for NBD in SCI. Strong correlations of subjective measures to objective outcome measures were generally lacking, supporting the need to use both measures to help with NBD management.\n","PeriodicalId":507086,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation","volume":"70 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46292/sci23-00065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Guidelines fail to recommend objective measures to assist with treatment of neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) in spinal cord injury (SCI). The main objective was to review the literature to identify the objective measures used in all NBD populations and to present their results and any correlations performed to validated subjective measures. A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with PRISMA (2020) guidelines, including all records from January 2012 to May 2023 with MeSH terms like “neurogenic bowel” indexed in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Abstracts were excluded if they did not include objective measures or if they only mentioned the esophagus, stomach, and/or small bowel. Records were screened independently by at least two collaborators, and differences were resolved by unanimous agreement. There were 1290 records identified pertaining to NBD. After duplicates were removed, the remaining records were screened for a total of 49 records. Forty-one records (82%) included subjective measures. Two-thirds of the articles involved the population with SCI/disease (n = 552) and one-third were non-SCI NBD (n = 476). Objective measures were categorized as (1) transit time, (2) anorectal physiology testing, and (3) miscellaneous. Of the 38 articles presenting results, only 16 (42%) performed correlations of objective measures to subjective measures. There is an abundance of literature supporting the use of objective outcome measures for NBD in SCI. Strong correlations of subjective measures to objective outcome measures were generally lacking, supporting the need to use both measures to help with NBD management.
不测量,怎么治疗?神经源性肠道客观测量系统回顾
脊髓损伤(SCI)患者神经源性肠功能障碍(NBD)的治疗指南并未推荐客观的测量方法。 该研究的主要目的是回顾文献,确定用于所有 NBD 患者的客观测量方法,并介绍其结果以及与经过验证的主观测量方法之间的相关性。 根据 PRISMA (2020) 指南对文献进行了系统性综述,包括 2012 年 1 月至 2023 年 5 月期间在以下数据库中以 "神经源性肠 "等 MeSH 术语索引的所有记录:PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL、Cochrane Central Trials Register 和 ClinicalTrials.gov。未包含客观测量指标或仅提及食管、胃和/或小肠的摘要将被排除。记录由至少两名合作者独立筛选,分歧由一致意见解决。 共找到 1290 条与 NBD 相关的记录。剔除重复的记录后,对剩余记录进行筛选,共筛选出 49 条记录。其中 41 条记录(82%)包含主观测量。三分之二的文章涉及患有 SCI/疾病的人群(n = 552),三分之一为非 SCI NBD(n = 476)。客观测量方法分为:(1)转运时间;(2)肛门直肠生理测试;(3)其他。在提供结果的 38 篇文章中,只有 16 篇(42%)将客观测量结果与主观测量结果进行了相关性分析。 有大量文献支持对 SCI 患者的 NBD 使用客观结果测量。主观测量结果与客观结果测量结果之间普遍缺乏强相关性,这支持了使用这两种测量结果来帮助进行 NBD 管理的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信