TY - JOUR
T1 - Biofeedback interventions for gastrointestinal conditions
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Coulter, Ian D.
AU - Favreau, Joya T.
AU - Hardy, Mary L.
AU - Morton, Sally C.
AU - Roth, Elizabeth A.
AU - Shekelle, Paul
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - Objective • To review evidence for the efficacy of biofeedback in the treatment of gastrointestinal problems. Data Sources • Studies were identified through a search of MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine, MANTIS, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index, and CINAHL. Study Selection • Studies were selected if they used biofeedback as the intervention, addressed the treatment of a gastrointestinal condition, and included a control group. Data Extraction • All titles (4397), articles, and/or abstracts (1362) were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers who extracted data on study design and quality, sample size, type of intervention, and outcomes. Data Synthesis • We found 16 controlled trials of biofeedback for gastrointestinal problems. Ten studies had a comparison group that did not receive biofeedback (5 studies on constipation and/or encopresis, 3 on fecal incontinence, 1 on constipation, and 1 on abdominal pain). Of the 10 studies that had a "no biofeedback" control arm, 7 provided sufficient data to calculate an effect size. Of these 7 studies, 2 favored biofeedback: 1 study revealed a reduction in fecal incontinence among adults, and the other study showed an improvement in constipation with fecal incontinence (encopresis) among children. The other 5 had nonsignificant results. Three studies had a "no biofeedback" comparison arm but insufficient data to calculate an effect size. One of these studies in adult fecal incontinence reported statistically significant improvement. Conclusions • The evidence is insufficient to support the efficacy of biofeedback for these gastrointestinal conditions.
AB - Objective • To review evidence for the efficacy of biofeedback in the treatment of gastrointestinal problems. Data Sources • Studies were identified through a search of MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine, MANTIS, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index, and CINAHL. Study Selection • Studies were selected if they used biofeedback as the intervention, addressed the treatment of a gastrointestinal condition, and included a control group. Data Extraction • All titles (4397), articles, and/or abstracts (1362) were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers who extracted data on study design and quality, sample size, type of intervention, and outcomes. Data Synthesis • We found 16 controlled trials of biofeedback for gastrointestinal problems. Ten studies had a comparison group that did not receive biofeedback (5 studies on constipation and/or encopresis, 3 on fecal incontinence, 1 on constipation, and 1 on abdominal pain). Of the 10 studies that had a "no biofeedback" control arm, 7 provided sufficient data to calculate an effect size. Of these 7 studies, 2 favored biofeedback: 1 study revealed a reduction in fecal incontinence among adults, and the other study showed an improvement in constipation with fecal incontinence (encopresis) among children. The other 5 had nonsignificant results. Three studies had a "no biofeedback" comparison arm but insufficient data to calculate an effect size. One of these studies in adult fecal incontinence reported statistically significant improvement. Conclusions • The evidence is insufficient to support the efficacy of biofeedback for these gastrointestinal conditions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036247048&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036247048&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Review article
C2 - 12017503
AN - SCOPUS:0036247048
SN - 1078-6791
VL - 8
SP - 76
EP - 83
JO - Alternative therapies in health and medicine
JF - Alternative therapies in health and medicine
IS - 3
ER -