| Literature DB >> 34552657 |
Sara Tavassoli1, Kambiz Eftekhari2, Mehrdad Karimi1, Ali Ghobadi3, Mohsen Shati4,5, Amir Naddaf6, Alireza Abbassian1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional constipation (FC) is a health concern that is prevalent in the pediatric population. It lowers the quality of life and increases the probability of comorbidities. As a complementary modality, herbal medicine has been considered useful in a variety of conditions. Persian medicine (PM) resources mention the Viola flower as an effective herb in treating constipation. The purpose of the current trial was to evaluate the efficacy of Viola flower syrup (VFS) compared with polyethylene glycol (PEG) in children with functional constipation.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34552657 PMCID: PMC8452406 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9915289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study.
Baseline characteristics of participants.
| Characteristics | VFS ( | PEG ( |
|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 7.01 ± 2.23 | 6.29 ± 2.13 |
| Sex, male, | 35 (50) | 34 (48) |
| Weight (kg) | 24.15 ± 7.84 | 21.11 ± 7.10 |
| Height | 119.88 ± 19.28 | 115.90 ± 13.79 |
| Duration of symptoms (months) | 42.34 ± 32.84 | 28.71 ± 26.18 |
Figure 2Defecation frequency (a), fecal incontinence (b), hard stool (c), episodes of retentive posturing (d), episodes of inconsistence (e), and painful defecation (f) in the two treatment groups of Viola flower syrup and PEG in children with functional constipation before and after intervention.
Results of the KOOS questionnaire between intervention (VFS) and control (PEG) groups.
| Variables | VFS ( | PEG ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
|
| |||
| Before treatment | 6.12 ± 0.80 | 6.23 ± 0.72 | 0.331 |
| After treatment | 4.06 ± 0.39 | 4.06 ± 0.78 | 0.504 |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Before treatment | 3.74 ± 1.65 | 3.42 ± 1.80 | 0.294 |
| After treatment | 6.01 ± 1.47 | 6.16 ± 1.33 | 0.536 |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Before treatment | 3.30 ± 1.61 | 3.25 ± 1.72 | 0.434 |
| After treatment | 0.53 ± 1.13 | 0.56 ± 1.15 | 0.993 |
| 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Before treatment | 2.24 ± 1.56 | 2.28 ± 1.68 | 0.873 |
| After treatment | 0.25 ± 1.01 | 0.40 ± 0.94 | 0.376 |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Before treatment | 1.62 ± 2.41 | 2.67 ± 3.00 | 0.028 |
| After treatment | 0.65 ± 1.85 | 0.80 ± 1.75 | 0.625 |
| 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Before treatment | 1.16 ± 2.13 | 1.41 ± 2.35 | 0.521 |
| After treatment | 0.34 ± 1.27 | 0.40 ± 1.25 | 0.804 |
| 0.001 | 0.001 | ||
aP value is calculated by the independent t-test. bP value is calculated by the paired t-test.
Comparison of side effects of the treatment in the groups.
| Groups | Abdominal pain | Loose stools | Nausea | Vomiting | Unpleasant taste | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VFS | 1 (1.4%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (1.4%) | 0.03 |
| PEG | 6 (8.6%) | 2 (2.9%) | 2 (2.9%) | 1 (1.4%) | 2 (2.9%) |