对儿科人群粪便嵌塞治疗管理的系统文献回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Morris Gordon, Svetlana Lakunina, Anna de Geus, Aderonke Ajiboye, Ahmer Khan Amran, Merit Tabbers, Marc A Benninga, Amber Balda, Vassiliki Sinopoulou
{"title":"对儿科人群粪便嵌塞治疗管理的系统文献回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Morris Gordon, Svetlana Lakunina, Anna de Geus, Aderonke Ajiboye, Ahmer Khan Amran, Merit Tabbers, Marc A Benninga, Amber Balda, Vassiliki Sinopoulou","doi":"10.1136/bmjpo-2025-003483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To date, there is no universally accepted or standardised protocol for management of faecal impaction (FI) in paediatric population. If left untreated, it can lead to serious consequences for the health and well-being of the child. We set out to determine the effectiveness and safety of existing therapeutic interventions for FI in children and identify any gaps occurring in current research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We have performed a systematic literature review on treatment of FI in paediatric population in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We have included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on all interventions for children (0-18 years old) with FI on background of functional constipation and excluded children with organic causes of FI. Our primary outcomes were treatment success, defecation frequency and withdrawals due to adverse events. We have performed a meta-analysis of the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 13 341 records identified, only eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total of 513 participants randomised. The diagnosis of functional constipation was mainly made using ROME III criteria. The diagnosis of FI varied from study to study. We identified several intervention groups based on our search. Our analysis has shown that there is no difference probably between PEG (Polyethylene Glycol).and PEG with sodium picosulphate, and there may be no difference between PEG and rectal enema for treatment success, but enema may lead to greater stool frequency. No other studies produced anything other than very low certainty evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No therapeutic approach was superior to others, with evidence limited by significant clinical heterogeneity related to varying patient and clinical factors, different outcome measures and limited study numbers. More high-quality research is needed to determine effective strategies for FI. Moreover, a consensus should be reached regarding the definition and diagnosis of FI as based on that a standardised approach to patient's care can be determined.</p>","PeriodicalId":9069,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12184409/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic literature review and meta-analysis on therapeutic management of faecal impaction in the paediatric population.\",\"authors\":\"Morris Gordon, Svetlana Lakunina, Anna de Geus, Aderonke Ajiboye, Ahmer Khan Amran, Merit Tabbers, Marc A Benninga, Amber Balda, Vassiliki Sinopoulou\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjpo-2025-003483\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To date, there is no universally accepted or standardised protocol for management of faecal impaction (FI) in paediatric population. If left untreated, it can lead to serious consequences for the health and well-being of the child. We set out to determine the effectiveness and safety of existing therapeutic interventions for FI in children and identify any gaps occurring in current research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We have performed a systematic literature review on treatment of FI in paediatric population in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We have included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on all interventions for children (0-18 years old) with FI on background of functional constipation and excluded children with organic causes of FI. Our primary outcomes were treatment success, defecation frequency and withdrawals due to adverse events. We have performed a meta-analysis of the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 13 341 records identified, only eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total of 513 participants randomised. The diagnosis of functional constipation was mainly made using ROME III criteria. The diagnosis of FI varied from study to study. We identified several intervention groups based on our search. Our analysis has shown that there is no difference probably between PEG (Polyethylene Glycol).and PEG with sodium picosulphate, and there may be no difference between PEG and rectal enema for treatment success, but enema may lead to greater stool frequency. No other studies produced anything other than very low certainty evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No therapeutic approach was superior to others, with evidence limited by significant clinical heterogeneity related to varying patient and clinical factors, different outcome measures and limited study numbers. More high-quality research is needed to determine effective strategies for FI. Moreover, a consensus should be reached regarding the definition and diagnosis of FI as based on that a standardised approach to patient's care can be determined.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Paediatrics Open\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12184409/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Paediatrics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2025-003483\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Paediatrics Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2025-003483","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

摘要

背景:迄今为止,还没有普遍接受或标准化的方案来管理儿科人群的粪便嵌塞(FI)。如果不及时治疗,可能会对儿童的健康和福祉造成严重后果。我们着手确定儿童FI的现有治疗干预措施的有效性和安全性,并确定当前研究中出现的任何空白。方法:我们按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,对儿科人群中FI的治疗进行了系统的文献综述。我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCTs),对所有以功能性便秘为背景的FI儿童(0-18岁)进行干预,并排除了器质性原因的FI儿童。我们的主要结局是治疗成功、排便频率和不良事件引起的停药。我们对数据进行了荟萃分析。结果:在确定的13341条记录中,只有8项随机对照试验符合我们的纳入标准,共有513名受试者被随机分组。功能性便秘的诊断主要采用ROME III标准。FI的诊断因研究而异。根据我们的搜索,我们确定了几个干预组。我们的分析表明,PEG(聚乙二醇)之间可能没有区别。而PEG与直肠灌肠在治疗成功率上可能没有区别,但灌肠可能导致大便频率增加。除了非常低的确定性证据外,没有其他研究得出任何结论。结论:没有一种治疗方法优于其他治疗方法,证据受到与不同的患者和临床因素、不同的结果测量和有限的研究数量相关的显著临床异质性的限制。需要更多高质量的研究来确定FI的有效策略。此外,应该就FI的定义和诊断达成共识,以确定患者护理的标准化方法为基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic literature review and meta-analysis on therapeutic management of faecal impaction in the paediatric population.

Background: To date, there is no universally accepted or standardised protocol for management of faecal impaction (FI) in paediatric population. If left untreated, it can lead to serious consequences for the health and well-being of the child. We set out to determine the effectiveness and safety of existing therapeutic interventions for FI in children and identify any gaps occurring in current research.

Methods: We have performed a systematic literature review on treatment of FI in paediatric population in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We have included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on all interventions for children (0-18 years old) with FI on background of functional constipation and excluded children with organic causes of FI. Our primary outcomes were treatment success, defecation frequency and withdrawals due to adverse events. We have performed a meta-analysis of the data.

Results: Out of 13 341 records identified, only eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total of 513 participants randomised. The diagnosis of functional constipation was mainly made using ROME III criteria. The diagnosis of FI varied from study to study. We identified several intervention groups based on our search. Our analysis has shown that there is no difference probably between PEG (Polyethylene Glycol).and PEG with sodium picosulphate, and there may be no difference between PEG and rectal enema for treatment success, but enema may lead to greater stool frequency. No other studies produced anything other than very low certainty evidence.

Conclusions: No therapeutic approach was superior to others, with evidence limited by significant clinical heterogeneity related to varying patient and clinical factors, different outcome measures and limited study numbers. More high-quality research is needed to determine effective strategies for FI. Moreover, a consensus should be reached regarding the definition and diagnosis of FI as based on that a standardised approach to patient's care can be determined.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信