Faecal impaction in children aged 0-18 years: a systematic review and metanarrative analysis of definitions used.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Morris Gordon, Amber Balda, Samantha Arrizabalo, Vassiliki Sinopoulou, Stephanie Batarseh, Jina Shargawi, Carlo Di Lorenzo, Marc A Benninga, Merit Tabbers, Miguel Saps
{"title":"Faecal impaction in children aged 0-18 years: a systematic review and metanarrative analysis of definitions used.","authors":"Morris Gordon, Amber Balda, Samantha Arrizabalo, Vassiliki Sinopoulou, Stephanie Batarseh, Jina Shargawi, Carlo Di Lorenzo, Marc A Benninga, Merit Tabbers, Miguel Saps","doi":"10.1136/bmjpo-2024-003085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Faecal impaction is the result of functional constipation in the majority of cases. Surprisingly, a uniform definition for the term faecal impaction is lacking, leading to heterogeneity across study results.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To conduct a metanarrative systematic review to ascertain how trial studies define faecal impaction among children aged 0-18 years with functional constipation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic metanarrative review to uncover what criteria are used to define faecal impaction and to recommend directions for creating a globally accepted definition. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using prominent databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTR (international clinical trials registry) and ClinicalTrials.gov. All relevant publications of RCTs on both faecal impaction and functional constipation from inception to June 2024, including children aged 0-18 years without underlying organic aetiology, were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>6211 studies were screened, of which 155 were reviewed for eligibility, 76 were included in the review and five are awaiting classification. Seven studies gave an explicit definition, with three referencing a previous consensus definition. 45 studies gave an implicit definition derived from their prescreening or exclusion criteria in a larger piece of research. Clinical assessment was the most common element of definitions, with a mixture of abdominal or rectal assessments reported in 44 studies. A further six studies suggested such clinical assessments are combined with radiographs, and one study reported a definition using radiographs alone. One study reported the duration of symptoms in a definition.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a clear lack of consensus for defining faecal impaction in children with functional constipation. Despite the clinical, diagnostic and prognostic importance of having a unified definition of faecal impaction, currently there seems to be no universally accepted definition.</p>","PeriodicalId":9069,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2024-003085","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Faecal impaction is the result of functional constipation in the majority of cases. Surprisingly, a uniform definition for the term faecal impaction is lacking, leading to heterogeneity across study results.

Aim: To conduct a metanarrative systematic review to ascertain how trial studies define faecal impaction among children aged 0-18 years with functional constipation.

Methods: We conducted a systematic metanarrative review to uncover what criteria are used to define faecal impaction and to recommend directions for creating a globally accepted definition. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using prominent databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTR (international clinical trials registry) and ClinicalTrials.gov. All relevant publications of RCTs on both faecal impaction and functional constipation from inception to June 2024, including children aged 0-18 years without underlying organic aetiology, were included.

Results: 6211 studies were screened, of which 155 were reviewed for eligibility, 76 were included in the review and five are awaiting classification. Seven studies gave an explicit definition, with three referencing a previous consensus definition. 45 studies gave an implicit definition derived from their prescreening or exclusion criteria in a larger piece of research. Clinical assessment was the most common element of definitions, with a mixture of abdominal or rectal assessments reported in 44 studies. A further six studies suggested such clinical assessments are combined with radiographs, and one study reported a definition using radiographs alone. One study reported the duration of symptoms in a definition.

Conclusion: There is a clear lack of consensus for defining faecal impaction in children with functional constipation. Despite the clinical, diagnostic and prognostic importance of having a unified definition of faecal impaction, currently there seems to be no universally accepted definition.

0-18岁儿童的粪便嵌塞:对所使用定义的系统回顾和元叙述分析。
背景:大多数情况下,大便嵌塞是功能性便秘的结果。令人惊讶的是,缺乏对“粪便嵌塞”一词的统一定义,导致研究结果存在异质性。目的:进行一项元叙述系统综述,以确定试验研究如何定义0-18岁功能性便秘儿童的粪便阻塞。方法:我们进行了一项系统的元叙述综述,以揭示用于定义粪便嵌塞的标准,并为创建全球公认的定义提出建议。使用CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、WHO ICTR(国际临床试验注册)和ClinicalTrials.gov等知名数据库进行了全面的文献检索。纳入了从开始到2024年6月所有关于粪便嵌塞和功能性便秘的随机对照试验的相关出版物,包括0-18岁无潜在器质性病因的儿童。结果:共筛选6211项研究,其中155项研究获得合格审查,76项纳入审查,5项正在等待分类。7项研究给出了明确的定义,其中3项引用了先前的共识定义。45项研究给出了一个隐含的定义,这个定义来自于他们在一项更大的研究中的预筛选或排除标准。临床评估是定义中最常见的元素,在44项研究中报告了腹部或直肠评估的混合。另有六项研究建议将此类临床评估与x光片相结合,一项研究报告了仅使用x光片的定义。一项研究在定义中报告了症状的持续时间。结论:对于功能性便秘儿童的粪便嵌塞的定义显然缺乏共识。尽管对粪便嵌塞有一个统一的定义具有临床、诊断和预后的重要性,但目前似乎没有一个普遍接受的定义。
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
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ Paediatrics Open Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
124
×
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