INTRODUCTION: Prevalence of chronic constipation has been estimated at 1-5% of children in the UK and USA, most of whom have no obvious aetiological factors. A third of children with chronic constipation continue to have problems beyond puberty. Half of children with chronic faecal impaction and soiling 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 treatments for children with chronic constipation? What are the effects of treatments for clearing the bowel in children with faecal impaction? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to June 2005 (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 15 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: anal dilatation, behavioural treatments (biofeedback, diaries, or toilet training), bulk-forming laxatives, faecal softeners, fiber, oral fluids, osmotic laxatives, stimulant laxatives.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Constipation is a common complaint in children and early intervention with oral laxatives may improve complete resolution of functional constipation. However, most treatment guidelines are based on reviews of the literature that do not incorporate a quality assessment of the studies.
To investigate and summarise the quantity and quality of the current evidence for the effect of laxatives and dietary measures on functional childhood constipation.
The Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify studies evaluating the effect of a medicamentous treatment or dietary intervention on functional constipation. Methodological quality was assessed using a validated list of criteria. Data were statistically pooled, and in case of clinical heterogeneity results were summarised according to a best evidence synthesis.
Of the 736 studies found, 28 met the inclusion criteria. In total 10 studies were of high quality. The included studies were clinically and statistically heterogeneous in design. Most laxatives were not compared to placebo. Compared to all other laxatives, polyethylene glycol (PEG) achieved more treatment success (pooled relative risk (RR): 1.47; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.76). Lactulose was less than or equally effective in increasing the defecation frequency compared to all other laxatives investigated. There was no difference in effect on defecation frequency between fibre and placebo (weighted standardised mean difference 0.35 bowel movements per week in favour of fibre, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.74).
Insufficient evidence exists supporting that laxative treatment is better than placebo in children with constipation. Compared to all other laxatives, PEG achieved more treatment success, but results on defecation frequency were conflicting. Based on the results of this review, we can give no recommendations to support one laxative over the other for childhood constipation.
Archives of Disease in Childhood 09/2008; 94(2):117-31. DOI:10.1136/adc.2007.127233 · 2.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: As the evidence base supporting the use of laxatives in children is very limited, we undertook an updated systematic review to clarify the issue. A comprehensive literature search was carried out to identify randomised controlled trials of polyethylene glycol (PEG) versus either placebo or active comparator, in patients aged <18 years with primary chronic constipation. Outcomes were assessed as either global assessments of effectiveness or differences in defaecation rates. Seven qualifying studies involving 594 children were identified. Five were comparisons of PEG with lactulose, one with milk of magnesia and one with placebo. Study duration ranged from 2 weeks to 12 months. PEG was significantly more effective than placebo and either equivalent to (two studies) or superior to (four studies) active comparator. Differences in study design precluded meaningful meta-analysis. Lack of high quality studies has meant that the management of childhood constipation has tended to rely on anecdote and empirical treatment choice. Recent publication of well designed randomised trials now permits a more evidence-based approach, with PEG-based treatments having been proven to be effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment.
Archives of Disease in Childhood 11/2008; 94(2):156-60. DOI:10.1136/adc.2007.128769 · 2.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: It is unclear how polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxatives compare with other classes of laxative in terms of efficacy. To assess efficacy of PEG vs. placebo and active comparators in adults with non-organic constipation. Text Word searches were carried out on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials and Google Scholar databases covering the period January 1970 to October 2009. Search terms were (constipation) AND (randomised OR randomized) AND (PEG OR polyethylene OR macrogol OR movicol OR idrolax OR miralax OR transipeg OR forlax OR colyte OR golytely OR isocolan OR nulytely) NOT colonoscopy. Only published randomised controlled trials, with a parallel-group or cross-over design, comparing oral PEG with placebo or a comparator laxative in adults with a history of non-organic constipation, were included. The frequency of defaecation in each arm, on completion of the protocol-defined treatment duration was extracted. All pooled analyses were based on random effect models. Of the 20 qualifying studies, 10 were vs. placebo, seven were vs. lactulose, and four were vs. other agents. One study compared PEG, placebo and lactulose. PEG treatment resulted in a highly significant increase in defaecations/week over placebo (all studies: additional 1.98 stools/week; p = 0.0003, high-quality studies: additional 2.34 stools/week; p = 0.0001) and over lactulose (all studies: additional 1 stool/week; p = 0.0017, high-quality studies: additional 1.65 stools/week; p = 0.021). This meta analysis is the only quantitative statistical analysis to have been published in the field. PEG was found to be a more effective laxative than lactulose in adult patients with constipation.
International Journal of Clinical Practice 06/2010; 64(7):944-55. DOI:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02397.x · 2.57 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.