Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2021
Current State of Knowledge on Digital Rectal Stimulation in Individuals With Traumatic and Nontraumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wincentak Joanne, Xu Ying, Rudden Louise, Kassam-Lallani Dilshad, Mullin Amy, Truong Cindy, Krog Kim, Kingsnorth Shauna
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To map and characterize the nature of the evidence on the use of digital rectal stimulation for bowel management in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI).
DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases were searched (ie, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Incontinence Group) from 1990 to November 2019.
STUDY SELECTION: Articles that provided information on the use of digital rectal stimulation either alone or in combination with treatments were included. Title and abstract screening was split between 2 reviewers after reaching consensus on the first 100 studies screened. Full-texts were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer.
DATA EXTRACTION: The data extraction form was developed by 2 reviewers and piloted. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 4841 studies were screened, including 425 full text articles; 33 articles were identified. Thirty-two studies focused solely on individuals with SCI and 1 study explored the experiences of caregivers of individuals with SCI. The majority of participants were aged between 30 and 59 years old. Most studies used quantitative methods (n=30, 91%). Fourteen of the studies (42%) were cross-sectional. Within experimental or quasiexperimental designs, digital rectal stimulation was commonly studied as an adjunct to other methods such as suppositories or enemas. Incontinence and defecation time were the most commonly examined outcomes.
CONCLUSION: There were few studies found that focus on digital rectal stimulation. Further studies examining experience, effectiveness, complications, and long-term outcomes are warranted.
DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases were searched (ie, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Incontinence Group) from 1990 to November 2019.
STUDY SELECTION: Articles that provided information on the use of digital rectal stimulation either alone or in combination with treatments were included. Title and abstract screening was split between 2 reviewers after reaching consensus on the first 100 studies screened. Full-texts were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer.
DATA EXTRACTION: The data extraction form was developed by 2 reviewers and piloted. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 4841 studies were screened, including 425 full text articles; 33 articles were identified. Thirty-two studies focused solely on individuals with SCI and 1 study explored the experiences of caregivers of individuals with SCI. The majority of participants were aged between 30 and 59 years old. Most studies used quantitative methods (n=30, 91%). Fourteen of the studies (42%) were cross-sectional. Within experimental or quasiexperimental designs, digital rectal stimulation was commonly studied as an adjunct to other methods such as suppositories or enemas. Incontinence and defecation time were the most commonly examined outcomes.
CONCLUSION: There were few studies found that focus on digital rectal stimulation. Further studies examining experience, effectiveness, complications, and long-term outcomes are warranted.