Skip to main content
. 2014 Mar 26;2014(3):CD008486. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008486.pub2

Chiarioni 2006.

Methods Study design: randomised controlled trial
Total study duration: 12 months for both groups, 24 months for biofeedback group only
Participants 109 patients with severe constipation (Rome II criteria) for > 12 months, unresponsive to standard treatment or 30 day trial of fibre
All with paradoxical contraction or non‐relaxing pelvic floor on EMG and inability to defecate 50 mL water‐filled balloon
Excluded patients with slow transit
Biofeedback n = 54 (3 male, 51 female) (Age ‐ mean 33.3 years (SE +/‐ 1.5 years)
Controls n = 55 (2 male, 54 female) (Age ‐ mean 35.1 years (SE +/‐ 1.4 years)
The authors reported groups to be similar at baseline, but no statistical analysis of comparability was reported
Interventions Intervention group:
Biofeedback: 5 weekly 30 minute training sessions
EMG biofeedback with contraction and relaxation of pelvic floor displayed on monitor
Practice defecation of simulated stool (50 mL water‐filled balloon) while traction applied
Comparison group:
Laxatives (polyethylene glycol [PEG] 14.6 g/day) plus education
Five 30 minute counselling sessions: avoiding unnecessary straining, defecation posture, routine, physiology of constipation, adverse effects of PEG discussed
Outcomes Patient response to the question "how would you grade your symptom improvement: worse (0), no improvement (1), mild (2), fair (3) or major improvement (4)" (primary outcome)
Bowel diary of stool frequency, laxative use (other than PEG), straining, sense of incomplete evacuation, feeling of blocked defecation (kept for 30 days prior to follow‐up visits following telephone reminder)
Anorectal manometry (anal canal pressure)
Surface intra‐anal EMG to measure responses to attempted defecation
Ability to defecate  a 50 ml water‐filled balloon (simulated stool)
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Shuffled sealed opaque envelopes
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Adequate concealment: sealed opaque envelopes
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Intent‐to‐treat analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Not registered on a clinical trials registry
Other bias Low risk The study appears to be free of other sources of bias