Summary of findings 6. Manometry biofeedback versus sham biofeedback for chronic constipation.

Manometry biofeedback versus sham biofeedback for chronic constipation
Patient or population: Patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia and chronic constipation Settings: Outpatient procedure Intervention: Manometry biofeedback versus sham biofeedback
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Manometry biofeedback versus sham biofeedback
Complete spontaneous bowel movements per week at three months	The mean number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week in the sham control group at three months year was 2.8	The mean number of complete spontaneous bowel movements in the intervention group was 1.8 movements higher (1.25 to 2.35 higher)		52 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

¹ High risk of bias in the included study due to open‐label design and the two groups were not equal at baseline as the biofeedback group had a significantly lower defecation index and relatively greater pelvic floor dysfunction than the sham group.
 ² Sparse data (52 patients).