Cochrane · systematic review · CD014257
Probiotics for treatment of chronic constipation in children
Wallace, C, Sinopoulou, V, Gordon, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · 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
24
current version
GRADE rated
13
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 4.2%Ungraded 10 · 41.7%Very low 8 · 33.3%Low 5 · 20.8%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
Probiotic compared to placebo for treatment of chronic constipation in children
Population: children with chronic constipation without a physical explanation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Frequency of defecation, stools/week Probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 280 participants | Ungraded |
Global improvement/treatment success as defined by primary study Probiotic vs placebo | RR 1.29 | 4 studies · 313 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Withdrawals due to adverse events Probiotic vs placebo | RR 0.64 [0.21, 1.95] | 5 studies · 357 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Serious adverse events Probiotic vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 198 participants | Ungraded |
Probiotics and osmotic laxative compared to osmotic laxative for treatment of chronic constipation in children
Population: children with chronic constipation without a physical explanation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Frequency of defecation (number of stools/week) Probiotics and osmotic laxative vs osmotic laxative | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 268 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Global improvement or treatment success, as defined by primary studies Probiotics and osmotic laxative vs osmotic laxative | RR 0.95 [0.79, 1.15] | 2 studies · 139 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Withdrawal due to adverse events Probiotics and osmotic laxative vs osmotic laxative | RR 2.86 [0.12, 68.35] | 3 studies · 268 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events Probiotics and osmotic laxative vs osmotic laxative | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 308 participants | Ungraded |
Probiotics compared to magnesium oxide for treatment of chronic constipation in children
Population: children with chronic constipation without a physical explanation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Frequency of defecation (number of stools/week) Probiotics vs magnesium oxide | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Global improvement/treatment success, as defined by the primary study Probiotics vs magnesium oxide | RR 1.08 [0.74, 1.57] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events Probiotics vs magnesium oxide | RR 0.5 [0.05, 5.04] | 2 studies · 77 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Serious adverse events Probiotics vs magnesium oxide | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 77 participants | Ungraded |
Synbiotics compared to placebo for treatment of chronic constipation in children
Population: children with chronic constipation without a physical explanation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Frequency of defecation (number of stools/week at end of study) Synbiotics vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Global improvement or treatment success, as defined by primary study Synbiotics vs placebo | RR 2.32 [1.54, 3.47] | 1 study · 155 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events Synbiotics vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 155 participants | Ungraded |
Serious adverse events Synbiotics vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 155 participants | Ungraded |
Synbiotics and paraffin compared to paraffin for treatment of chronic constipation in children
Population: children with chronic constipation without a physical explanation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Frequency of defecation (number of stools/week) Synbiotics and paraffin vs paraffin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Global improvement or treatment success, as defined by primary studies Synbiotics and paraffin vs paraffin | RR 0.91 [0.71, 1.17] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events Synbiotics and paraffin vs paraffin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 66 participants | Ungraded |
Serious adverse events Synbiotics and paraffin vs paraffin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 66 participants | Ungraded |
Synbiotics compared to paraffin for treatment of chronic constipation in children
Population: children with chronic constipation without a physical explanation
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Frequency of defecation (number of stools/week) Synbiotics vs paraffin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Global improvement or treatment success, as defined by primary studies Synbiotics vs paraffin | RR 0.86 [0.65, 1.13] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events Synbiotics vs paraffin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Serious adverse events Synbiotics vs paraffin | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |