SynthesisClinical and translational gastroenterology2026
Safety and Efficacy of Manual and Automated Abdominal Colonic Massage for Chronic Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAbdominal colonic massage shows benefits against chronic constipation (CC). While both manual and automated versions of this therapy show potential, there is currently no comprehensive synthesis comparing their effectiveness and safety.
methodsStudies on manual and device-assisted abdominal massage for CC were identified from major bibliographic databases (1990-2025). Risk of bias was assessed. Outcomes included bowel movements per week (BM/w), quality of life (QoL), and adverse events. Meta-analyses were stratified by patient profile and intervention type. Where available, control data were extracted and compiled in a third group compared with manual and automated intervention through POST-PRE analysis of variance statistical synthesis.
resultsOf 1,352 records screened, 54 studies met inclusion criteria, 35 were included in the meta-analysis (1965 patients). No study was judged at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed significant improved BM/w and QoL after both manual ( pBM/w&QoL < 0.00001) and device-assisted ( pBM/w = 0.0006; pQoL < 0.00001). Stratified analyses showed consistent effect estimates in functional constipation/chronic idiopathic constipation across intervention types, whereas neurogenic bowel dysfunction meta-analysis was not feasible because of limited studies. No significant difference was observed between manual or device-assisted outcomes in any subgroup. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results. Statistical synthesis confirmed both manual and automated interventions outperformed controls (BM/w: x5.9-x7.6; P = .0006; QoL: x2.4-x4.1; P < 0.005) with no significant difference between them. Adverse events were rare (6.3%), mild, and self-limiting. DISCUSSION: Abdominal massage is a safe and effective treatment for CC from both neurogenic bowel dysfunction and functional constipation/chronic idiopathic constipation origin. The automated version is equal or more effective than the manual, making it a strong candidate for inclusion in regular clinical practice.
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.