Cochrane · systematic review · CD008486
Biofeedback for treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation in adults
Woodward, S, Norton, C, Chiarelli, P · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
GutAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
9
current version
GRADE rated
9
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 44.4%Low 5 · 55.6%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Balloon sensory training biofeedback versus surgery for chronic constipation
Population: Patients with anismus and chronic constipation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number improved at one year Balloon sensory training biofeedback vs surgery | RR 0.43 [0.21, 0.89] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Constipation score at one year Balloon sensory training biofeedback vs surgery | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Balloon sensory training biofeedback versus botulinum toxin‐A for chronic constipation
Population: Patients with anismus and chronic constipation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Constipation score at one year Balloon sensory training biofeedback vs botulinum toxin‐A | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
EMG biofeedback versus diazepam for chronic constipation
Population: Patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia and chronic constipation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Number improved at three months EMG biofeedback vs diazepam | RR 3 [1.51, 5.98] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
EMG biofeedback versus STARR procedure for obstructed defecation
Population: Patients with obstructed defecation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment success at one year1 EMG biofeedback vs STARR procedure | RR 0.41 [0.26, 0.65] | 1 study · 93 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Obstructed defecation score at one year EMG biofeedback vs STARR procedure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 93 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
EMG biofeedback versus laxative for chronic constipation
Population: Patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia and chronic constipation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Major clinical improvement at six months EMG biofeedback vs laxative | RR 3.65 [2.17, 6.13] | 1 study · 109 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Manometry biofeedback versus sham biofeedback for chronic constipation
Population: Patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia and chronic constipation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complete spontaneous bowel movements per week at three months Manometry biofeedback vs sham biofeedback | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 52 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Manometry biofeedback versus standard care for chronic constipation
Population: Patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia and chronic constipation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Complete spontaneous bowel movements per week at three months Manometry biofeedback vs standard care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 52 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |