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. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes assessed in this review using the GRADE criteria.

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 There were multiple reports identified, including one unpublished report, that focused on different outcomes of the same study.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.We are very uncertain about the effects of TES on bowel movements, colonic transit, soiling symptoms and quality of life due to high risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision. For our outcomes of interest the 95% CI of most analysis results include potential benefit and no effect. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of TES on bowel movements and colonic transit. The study reported that 16/21 children in the TES group and 15/21 in the sham group had > 3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM) per week (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; very low-quality evidence). Ten out of 14 children in the TES group had improved colonic transit compared to 1/7 in the sham group (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.63; very low-quality evidence). Mean colonic transit rate, measured as the position of the geometric centre of the radioactive substance ingested along the intestinal tract, was higher in children who received TES compared to sham (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.74; one study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). The radiological assessment of colonic transit outcomes means that these results might not translate to important improvement in clinical symptoms or increased bowel movements. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of TES on symptoms and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Nine out of 13 children in the TES group had improved soiling-related symptoms compared to 4/12 sham participants (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.00; very low-quality evidence). Four out of 8 TES participants reported an improvement in QoL compared to 1/8 sham participants (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40; very low-quality evidence). The effects of TES on self-perceived (MD 5.00, 95% CI -1.21 to 11.21; one study, 33 participants; very low-quality evidence) or parent-perceived QoL (MD -0.20, 95% CI -7.57 to 7.17, one study, 33 participants; very low-quality evidence) are uncertain. No adverse effects were reported in the included study.

METHOD: This qualitative study involved four trained researchers conducting in-depth interviews (IDI) based on a semi-structured interview guide. The participants were ICU patients and family members. All IDIs were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Four researchers independently analyzed the data via thematic analysis with the aid of QDA Miner Lite®. The themes and subthemes were generated and confirmed by literature and expert opinion.

RESULTS: Six IDIs were conducted with three patients and three family members, whose ages ranged from 31 to 64 years old. One pair of participants consisted of a patient and his respective family member, while the other four participants did not have a familial relationship with each other. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: (I) critical care services; (II) physical spaces; and (III) monitoring technology. Medical, psychological, physical, and social needs for critical care services were expressed by both patients and family members. Patients' needs in clinical spaces were highlighted as a conducive ICU environment with ambient temperature and controlled noise levels. In non-clinical spaces, family members expressed a need for more chairs in the waiting area. Participants expressed the need for call bells as well as patients' negative perceptions of medical equipment alarms in the ICU when it pertained to monitoring technology.

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.

METHODS: Using the national hospital admission records database, we included all stroke patients who were discharged alive between 2008 and 2015 for this secondary data analysis. The risk of readmissions was described in proportion and trends. Reasons were coded according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with readmissions.

RESULTS: Among 151729 patients, 11 to 13% were readmitted within 28 days post-discharge from their stroke events each year. The trend was constant for ischemic stroke but decreasing for hemorrhagic stroke. The leading causes for readmissions were recurrent stroke (32.1%), pneumonia (13.0%) and sepsis (4.8%). The risk of 28-day readmission was higher among those with stroke of hemorrhagic (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.52) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (AOR: 2.56) subtypes, and length of index admission >3 days (AOR: 1.48), but lower among younger age groups of 35-64 (AORs: 0.61-0.75), p values <0.001.

DESIGN: A double-blind randomized controlled trial.

METHODS: This study comprised 295 patients who were randomized into the intracameral (ICM) mydriatic group or topical mydriatic group. Central corneal endothelial cell density (ECD), coefficient of variation (CV), and percentage of hexagonal cells were measured preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 week, 6 weeks, and 3 months with specular microscope.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference in endothelial cell density and endothelial cell loss between the topical and ICM mydriatic groups. At 3 months, the mean endothelial cell density in the ICM group was 2129.76 ± 423.53 cells/mm2 and 2100.54 ± 393.00 cells/mm2 in the topical group (P = 0.539). The endothelial cell loss was 18.60 ± 12.79% in the IC M group and 19.44 ± 11.24% in the topical group (P = 0.550). No significant difference was seen in the percentage of hexagonal cells and coefficient of variation of patients between the 2 groups.