Neurourology and urodynamics · 2022
The effect of biofeedback treatment for children with non-neurogenic voiding dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Qi Wenqiang, Zhou Yongheng, Zhong Minglei, Lv Guangda, Li Rongyang, Wang Wenfu, Li Yan, Shi Benkang, Guo Hu, Zhang Qiujie
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Children's non-neurogenic voiding dysfunction (NVD) is a syndrome characterized by lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTs) because of the inability to relax the external sphincter. Patients with NVD always suffer from urinary tract infections (UTI), incontinence, constipation. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of biofeedback treatment for children's NVD.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library database were searched for all relevant studies. Two independent reviewers decided whether to include the study, conducted quality evaluation, and extracted article data. A random-effects model was used to calculate overall effect sizes. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) served as the summary statistics for meta-analysis. And sensitivity analysis was subsequently performed.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies and 1274 patients were included in the systemic review, seven RCTs and 539 patients were included in meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed efficacy of biofeedback treatment in following aspects, (1) relieving UTI (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.11 to 2.64), (2) reducing PVR (MD: 9.51, 95% CI: 2.03 to 16.98), (3) increasing maximum urine flow rate (MD: 4.28, 95% CI: 2.14 to 6.42) and average urine flow rate (MD: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.53 to 2.46), (4) relieving constipation (RR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.26)，(5) improving abnormal voiding pattern (RR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.30 to 2.36) and abnormal EMG during voiding (RR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.91). The improvement of UTI symptoms, maximum urine flow rate and average urine flow rate took a longer time (12 months). In terms of daytime incontinence (RR: 1.20, 95% CI [0.96, 1.50], p = 0.11), nighttime incontinence (RR: 1.20, 95% CI [0.62, 2.32], p = 0.58), no significant difference was found between biofeedback treatment and standard urotherapy. The qualitative analysis showed that biofeedback treatment was beneficial for NVD.
CONCLUSION: Compared with standard urotherapy, biofeedback treatment is effective for some symptoms, such as UTI and constipation, and can improve some uroflowmetric parameters, such as PVR. Biofeedback treatment seems to have a better long-term effect.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library database were searched for all relevant studies. Two independent reviewers decided whether to include the study, conducted quality evaluation, and extracted article data. A random-effects model was used to calculate overall effect sizes. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) served as the summary statistics for meta-analysis. And sensitivity analysis was subsequently performed.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies and 1274 patients were included in the systemic review, seven RCTs and 539 patients were included in meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed efficacy of biofeedback treatment in following aspects, (1) relieving UTI (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.11 to 2.64), (2) reducing PVR (MD: 9.51, 95% CI: 2.03 to 16.98), (3) increasing maximum urine flow rate (MD: 4.28, 95% CI: 2.14 to 6.42) and average urine flow rate (MD: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.53 to 2.46), (4) relieving constipation (RR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.26)，(5) improving abnormal voiding pattern (RR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.30 to 2.36) and abnormal EMG during voiding (RR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.91). The improvement of UTI symptoms, maximum urine flow rate and average urine flow rate took a longer time (12 months). In terms of daytime incontinence (RR: 1.20, 95% CI [0.96, 1.50], p = 0.11), nighttime incontinence (RR: 1.20, 95% CI [0.62, 2.32], p = 0.58), no significant difference was found between biofeedback treatment and standard urotherapy. The qualitative analysis showed that biofeedback treatment was beneficial for NVD.
CONCLUSION: Compared with standard urotherapy, biofeedback treatment is effective for some symptoms, such as UTI and constipation, and can improve some uroflowmetric parameters, such as PVR. Biofeedback treatment seems to have a better long-term effect.