Summary of findings 7. Manometry biofeedback versus standard care for chronic constipation.
| Manometry biofeedback versus standard care for chronic constipation | ||||||
| Patient or population: Patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia and chronic constipation Settings: Outpatient procedure Intervention: Manometry biofeedback versus standard care | ||||||
| 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 standard care | |||||
| Complete spontaneous bowel movements per week at three months | The mean number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week in the control group at three months was 1.9 | The mean number of complete spontaneous bowel movements in the intervention group was 2.7 movements higher (1.99 to 3.41 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. 2 Sparse data (52 patients).