Gut-directed hypnotherapy for functional abdominal pain or irritable
Download
Report
Transcript Gut-directed hypnotherapy for functional abdominal pain or irritable
Gut-directed hypnotherapy for
functional abdominal pain or irritable
bowel syndrome in children:
a systematic review
Journal club presentation 30.4.13
Rohini Rattihalli
• Summary of paper
• Critically appraise against checklist
Abstract
• Systematic review to assess efficacy of HT in paediatric
FAP/IBS patients.
• Three RCT comparing HT to a control treatment were
included with sample sizes ranging from 22 to 52
children.
• All trials showed statistically significantly greater
improvement in abdominal pain scores among children
receiving HT.
• Therapeutic effects of HT seem superior to standard
medical care in children with FAP or IBS.
Introduction
• Functional abdominal pain (FAP) and irritable bowel
syndrome (IBS) are characterised by chronic or recurrent
abdominal pain without evidence of any underlying
organic disorder.
• affecting approximately 20% of all children.
• brain–gut axis
• standard medical care: dietary advice, education and
medication.
Methods
• Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Cumulative Index to
Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases and the
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
• Search strategy was based on the strategy used by
Webb et al15 in their Cochrane Review.
• reference lists of relevant studies identified in the
literature search were searched by hand
• No language restriction was applied.
• Hypnotherapy/GI
Screening questions
1. Did the review address a clearly focused issue?
– Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCT) in children with FAP
or IBS, investigating efficacy of HT on the following outcomes:
abdominal pain scores, quality of life, costs and school
absenteeism.
2. Did the authors look for the appropriate sort of
papers?
– RCTs
– Hypnotherapy and Guided imagery
3. Do you think that all the important, relevant studies
were included?
– All search terms not mentioned
– References checked
– No language restrictions.
– No mention of
- personal contact with experts
- search for unpublished as well as published studies
4. Did the review's authors do enough to assess the
quality of the included studies
• Delphi criteria and scores: ? Tabulated for exact
criteria met
• Bias
– Randomised
– Similar at baseline
– Person assessing outcomes blind to allocation
5. If the results of the review have been combined, was
it reasonable to do so?
Not combined
Different outcomes
Small numbers
What are the overall results of the review?
• More studies needed!
• Results not pooled
• NNT not expressed (outcome not binary)
• Therapeutic effects of HT seem superior to standard
medical care in children with FAP or IBS.
How precise are the results?
No CI
Can the results be applied to my patient care?
•No mention of source of patients in individual papers
•Local accessibility for hypnotherapy services
Were all clinically important outcomes considered?
– Costs (and therefore local availability) not assessed
Are the benefits worth the harms and the costs
– No side effects noted.
– Costs not looked into.