Efficacy and safety of vibrating capsule in treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) colon meta-analysis spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) vibrating capsule (VC)

Journal

Translational gastroenterology and hepatology
ISSN: 2415-1289
Titre abrégé: Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101683450

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
received: 25 08 2023
accepted: 10 12 2023
medline: 6 2 2024
pubmed: 6 2 2024
entrez: 6 2 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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). 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.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
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 UNASSIGNED
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 UNASSIGNED
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 UNASSIGNED
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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38317751
doi: 10.21037/tgh-23-64
pii: tgh-09-23-64
pmc: PMC10838609
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

8

Informations de copyright

2024 Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tgh.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tgh-23-64/coif). M.A. serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Translational Gastroenterology and Hepatology from September 2022 to August 2024. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Auteurs

Hossein Haghbin (H)

Division of Gastroenterology, Ascension Providence Hospital, Southfield, MI, USA.

Nurruddinkhodja Zakirkhodjaev (N)

Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Manesh Kumar Gangwani (MK)

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.

Azizullah Beran (A)

Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Wade Lee-Smith (W)

University of Toledo Libraries, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.

Michael H Piper (MH)

Division of Gastroenterology, Ascension Providence Hospital, Southfield, MI, USA.

Muhammad Aziz (M)

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.

Classifications MeSH