Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Ergebnis 2 von 168

Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte
Titel
Are micro enemas administered with a squeeze tube and a 5 cm-long nozzle as good or better than micro enemas administered with a 10 cm-long catheter attached to a syringe in people with a recent spinal cord injury? A non-inferiority, crossover randomised controlled trial
Ist Teil von
  • Spinal cord, 2022-12, Vol.60 (12), p.1136-1143
Ort / Verlag
London: Nature Publishing Group
Erscheinungsjahr
2022
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
Alma/SFX Local Collection
Beschreibungen/Notizen
  • Abstract Study design Double blind, non-inferiority crossover randomised controlled trial. Objectives To determine if micro enemas administered with a squeeze-tube and a 5 cm-long nozzle (squeeze-tube method) are as good or better than micro enemas administered with a 10 cm-long catheter attached to a syringe (catheter method) in people with a recent spinal cord injury. Setting Two inpatient spinal cord injury units located in Sydney, Australia. Methods Twenty people admitted to hospital with recent spinal cord injury were randomly assigned to two treatment sequences; 4 weeks of micro enemas delivered by the squeeze-tube method followed by 4 weeks of micro enemas delivered by the catheter method, or vice versa. Each treatment sequence was 8 weeks with a crossover at the end of week 4. The primary outcome was time to complete bowel care. Secondary outcomes reflected faecal incontinence, quality of life, perception of treatment effectiveness and participant reported time to complete bowel care. The primary and secondary outcomes were measured by blinded assessors in week 4 and week 8. A non-inferiority margin of 10 min for time to complete bowel care was set a priori. Results The mean between group difference (95% confidence interval) for the time to complete bowel care was −0.5 min (−2.8 to 1.8), where a negative value favours the catheter method. Results were similar for all secondary outcomes. Conclusions Micro enemas delivered by the squeeze-tube method are as good or better than micro enemas delivered by the catheter method in people with a recent spinal cord injury.
Sprache
Englisch
Identifikatoren
ISSN: 1362-4393
eISSN: 1476-5624
DOI: 10.1038/s41393-022-00835-5
Titel-ID: cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9328624

Weiterführende Literatur

Empfehlungen zum selben Thema automatisch vorgeschlagen von bX