OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TES when employed to improve bowel function and constipation-related symptoms in children with constipation.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) (1950 to July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 2015), the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register, trial registries and conference proceedings to identify applicable studies .
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that assessed any type of TES, administered at home or in a clinical setting, compared to no treatment, a sham TES, other forms of nerve stimulation or any other pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical measures used to treat constipation in children were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for categorical outcomes data and the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: One study from Australia including 46 children aged 8 to 18 years was eligible for inclusion. There were multiple reports identified, including one unpublished report, that focused on different outcomes of the same study. The study had unclear risk of selection bias, high risks of performance, detection and attrition biases, and low risks of reporting biases.There were no significant differences between TES and the sham control group for the following outcomes: i).number of children with > 3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53, one study, 42 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision ), ii). number of children with improved colonic transit assessed radiologically (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.63; one study, 21 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). However, mean colonic transit rate, measured as the position of the geometric centre of the radioactive substance ingested along the intestinal tract, was significantly higher in children who received TES compared to sham (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; one study, 30 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias , serious imprecision and indirectness of the outcome). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of children with improved soiling-related symptoms (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.00; one study, 25 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). There was no significant difference in the number of children with improved quality of life (QoL) (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40; one study, 16 participants) (
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: very low, due to high risk of bias issues and serious imprecision ). There were also no significant differences in in self-perceived (MD 5.00, 95% CI -1.21 to 11.21) or parent-perceived QoL (MD -0.20, 95% CI -7.57 to 7.17, one study, 33 participants for both outcomes) (QUALITY OF EVIDENCE for both outcomes: very low, due to high risk of bias and serious imprecision). No adverse effects were reported in the included study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The very low quality evidence gathered in this review does not suggest that TES provides a benefit for children with chronic constipation. Further randomized controlled trials assessing TES for the management of childhood constipation should be conducted. Future trials should include clear documentation of methodologies, especially measures to evaluate the effectiveness of blinding, and incorporate patient-important outcomes such as the number of patients with improved CSBM, improved clinical symptoms and quality of life.
METHODS: A qualitative approach using focus group discussions was conducted to get in-depth information about medicines use pattern and practice from the general public. Adult people who reported using medicines at the time of study or in the previous month were approached. Two focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The obtained data were analysed using thematic content analysis.
RESULTS: This study found that there are some misunderstanding about the appropriate use of medicines. The majority of the participants reported that they were complying with their medication regimen. However, forgetting to take medicines was stated by 4 participants while 2 participants stopped taking medicines when they felt better. In addition, 10 participants reporting using medicines according to their own knowledge and past experience. Whereas 4 participants took medicines according to other informal resources such as family, friends or the media. Seven participants have experienced side effects with using medicines, 4 of them informed their doctor while 3 participants stopped taking medicines without informing their doctor.
CONCLUSION: There was a misunderstanding about medicines use in terms of medication compliance, self-management of the illness and the resources of information about using medicines. Many efforts are still needed from health care professionals to provide sufficient information about medicines use in order to decrease the risk of inappropriate use of medicines and to achieve better therapeutic outcome.
METHODS: To retrieve documents related to pharmaceutical wastewater, we used the Scopus database on November 21, 2015. All documents with terms related to pharmaceutical wastewater in the title or abstract were analysed. Results obtained from Arab countries were compared with those obtained from Turkey, Iran and Israel.
RESULTS: Globally, a total of 6360 publications were retrieved while those from Arab countries, Iran, Turkey and Israel, were 179, 113, 96 and 54 publications respectively. The highest share of publications belonged to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) with a total of 47 (26.2 %) publications, followed by Egypt (38; 21.2 %), Tunisia (17; 9.5 %) and Morocco (16; 8.9 %). The total number of citations was 1635, with a mean of 9.13 and a median (inter quartile range) of 3 (1.0-10.0). The study identified 87 (48.6 %) documents with 32 countries of international collaboration with Arab countries. It was noted that Arab researchers collaborated mainly with authors in Western Europe (54; 30.2 %), followed by authors from the Asiatic region (29; 16.2 %) and Northern America (15; 8.4 %). The most productive institution was King Saud University, KSA (13; 7.3 %), followed by the National Research Centre, Egypt (10; 7.3 %).
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that KSA has the largest share of productivity on pharmaceutical wastewater research. Bibliometric analysis demonstrated that research productivity, mainly from Arab countries in pharmaceutical wastewater research, was relatively lagging behind. More research effort is required for Arab countries to catch up with those of non-Arab Middle Easter countries on pharmaceutical wastewater research.