ArticleTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2024
Efficacy and safety of vibrating capsule in treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple pharmacological interventions and modalities are available for managing chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC), with variable efficacy. Vibrating capsule (VC) is a device that has shown variable results in alleviating constipation by tactile stimulation of the colonic wall and inducing peristalsis. This meta-analysis is to investigate the efficacy and safety of this modality. Methods: Comprehensive literature search was performed through June 14th, 2023, on databases including Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Global Index Medicus, and Google Scholar. Core concepts of VC, constipation, and bowel movement were searched. The DerSimonian-Laird method and random effects model were utilized. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) for proportional and continuous variables, respectively, with 95% confidence interval (CI) and a P value of <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The search strategy yielded 117 articles. Four studies with 705 total patients were finalized comparing VC to placebo/sham treatment. The pooled complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM), defined as bowel movement without use of laxatives within the last 48 hours with sense of complete evacuation did not achieve statistical improvement with VC (MD =0.153; 95% CI: -0.218 to 0.523; P=0.422). However, spontaneous bowel movement (SBM), defined as bowel movement without use of laxatives within the last 48 hours, showed statistical improvement with VC (MD =0.159; 95% CI: 0.095 to 0.223; P<0.001). VC didn't show an increase in pooled adverse events (OR =1.431; 95% CI: 0.702 to 2.916; P=0.324). Conclusions: The systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that VC is safe and efficacious in some outcomes, however, larger randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world data are needed to establish this.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.