AzTrials
AzTrials

Stroke RehabilitationNCT03031977

Visceral Mobilization and Functional Constipation in Stroke Survivors

A study testing visceral mobilization in people with Stroke Rehabilitation, run by University of Sorocaba.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of visceral mobilization on symptoms of functional constipation and static balance in stroke survivors. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 40 to 70 years
Conditions the study is for
Stroke Rehabilitation
What is being tested?
visceral mobilization
Could I receive a placebo?
Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people
30 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
Sep 2016to Dec 2016
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 40 to 70 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Male and female patients aged 40 to 70 years having suffered a stroke more than one year earlier with hemiparesis secondary to a single unilateral event
  • The capacity for independent gait and a complaint of chronic constipation for more than six months in accordance with the definition of functional constipation described by the Rome III Consensus

Who cannot join

  • Incision or tumor in the abdominal region
  • fractures
  • rheumatic disease
  • infectious process in the acute phase
  • inability to understand the proposed evaluations
  • inability to walk or maintain balance in an independent manner

About this study

Official title: Visceral Mobilization and Functional Constipation in Stroke Survivors: a Randomized, Controlled, Double-blind, Clinical Trial

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of visceral mobilization on symptoms of functional constipation and static balance in stroke survivors.

Read the detailed description

Procedures

All volunteers received clarifications with regard to the procedures and were informed that the procedures would not affect their health. The volunteers were assured that all information would be confidential and their privacy would remain protected. All volunteers who agreed to participate in the study signed a statement of informed consent in compliance with Resolution 196/96 of the Brazilian National Board of Health.

Sham intervention procedures were always performed in combination with active conventional therapy, which lessened the impact the sham procedure on the patient. Moreover, the patients were informed of the use of this procedure prior to the onset of the study.

Randomization, evaluation and intervention

Thirty individuals met the eligibility criteria and were randomly allocated to one of the two study groups using a block randomization method. Fifteen patients were allocated to each group: Experimental group - conventional physical therapy and visceral mobilization; control group: conventional physical therapy and sham mobilization. Block randomization involved the use of sealed opaque envelopes, each containing a card stipulating one of the two groups. After the pre-intervention evaluation, the participant was allocated to a group by opening an envelope. This process was performed by a member of the research team who was not involved in the recruitment process or development of the study.

Evaluations were performed on three occasions: 1) prior to the intervention; 2) immediately after the first session; and 3) one week after the last session. All specific evaluation procedures were performed during the pre-intervention and post-intervention (one week after the sessions) evaluations, whereas only the computerized plantar pressure evaluation was performed at the second evaluation (immediately after the first session). The researcher in charge of the evaluations was blinded to the objectives of the study and did not take part in the intervention protocols. Moreover, the order of the evaluations was randomized to avoid the effect of standardization.

First, an identification chart was filled out with information on age, sex, date of stroke episode and onset of constipation. Anthropometric data (body mass and height) were also measured and recorded. The specific evaluation procedures consisted of the use of an intestinal symptoms rating scale(16) (primary outcome) and plantar pressure evaluation (secondary outcome).

The ten-item intestinal symptoms rating scale was used to measure the intensity of intestinal symptoms. On this scale, each item is scored from 0 to 4 points. Item 1 regards the frequency of bowel movements and Items 2 to 10 address intestinal symptoms. The final scores is calculated by the mean of the item scores; 0 corresponds to a absence of symptoms and 4 corresponds to the highest intensity of symptoms.(16) The plantar pressure evaluation was performed using a force plate (Medicapteurs France S-Plate) with 1600 sensors and an acquisition frequency of 100 images per second. This force plate measures the distribution of plantar pressure during quiet standing, with quantitative data on anteroposterior and mediolateral sway (cm) as well as the mean sway velocity (cm/s) in these directions. The volunteer stood barefoot on the pressure plate in the standing position with arms alongside the body, gaze fixed on the horizon, lips closed, with the mandible and rest of the body relaxed. Readings were performed for 50 seconds, the 30 intermediate seconds of which were used for analysis. The values were recorded using the program provided by the manufacturer installed on a microcomputer.

Both groups were submitted to general kinesiotherapy with a focus on strengthening, stretching and proprioception during conventional physical therapy. The experimental group was also submitted to mobilization of the ascending colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon and sphincters (cardiac, pyloric, Oddi, duodenojejunal and ileocecal) with the patient in the supine position, knees flexed, feet supported and abdomen exposed. Contact was made with the region to be treated, leading it in the direction of immobility, with pressure maintained for one minute on each region with intensity based on the sensitivity to tension observed on the feedback of the individual. In the control group, sham mobilization was performed, which consisted of superficial contact with no pressure on the abdominal region corresponding to the loops of the large intestine. Five intervention sessions were held over a two-week period.

Statistical analysis

The data were first submitted to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to determine adherence to the Gaussian curve. The independent t-test was used for the inter-group analysis. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used for the intra-group analysis under each condition. The chi-square test was used to evaluate the dispersion of the qualitative variables in the intra-group and inter-group analyses. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered indicative of statistical significance. The data were organized and tabulated using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v.19.0).

Being tested
visceral mobilization

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • visceral mobilizationOther

Study groups in NCT03031977
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
visceral mobilizationExperimentalConventional physical therapy and visceral mobilization. The experimental group was also submitted to mobilization of the ascending colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon and sphincters (cardiac, pyloric, Oddi, duodenojejunal and ileocecal) with the patient in the supine position, knees flexed, feet supported and abdomen exposed. Contact was made with the region to be treated, leading it in the direction of immobility, with pressure maintained for one minute on each region with intensity based on the sensitivity to tension observed on the feedback of the individual.
Receives: Other: visceral mobilization
sham mobilizationSham comparatorConventional physical therapy and sham mobilization. In the control group, sham mobilization was performed, which consisted of superficial contact with no pressure on the abdominal region corresponding to the loops of the large intestine.
Receives: Other: visceral mobilization

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. intestinal symptoms rating scale

    The ten-item intestinal symptoms rating scale was used to measure the intensity of intestinal symptoms. On this scale, each item is scored from 0 to 4 points. Item 1 regards the frequency of bowel movements and Items 2 to 10 address intestinal symptoms. The final scores is calculated by the mean of the item scores; 0 corresponds to a absence of symptoms and 4 corresponds to the highest intensity of symptoms.

    Measured: 1 month

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. plantar pressure evaluation

    The plantar pressure evaluation was performed using a force plate (Medicapteurs France S-Plate) with 1600 sensors and an acquisition frequency of 100 images per second. This force plate measures the distribution of plantar pressure during quiet standing, with quantitative data on anteroposterior and mediolateral sway (cm) as well as the mean sway velocity (cm/s) in these directions.

    Measured: 1 month

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted26 Jan 2017 (estimated)
  2. Study startSep 2016
  3. Primary completionOct 2016
  4. Study completionDec 2016

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator
Enrolment
30 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03031977
Sponsor's protocol ID
Hugo Fisioterapia
Status last verified
Jan 2017
First submitted
16 Jan 2017
Last updated
26 Jan 2017
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
Yes

Publications

  • Todd CL, Johnson EE, Stewart F, Wallace SA, Bryant A, Woodward S, Norton C. Conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Oct 29;10(10):CD002115. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002115.pub6.

    PubMed 39470206

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing visceral mobilization in people with Stroke Rehabilitation, run by University of Sorocaba.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Jan 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

intestinal symptoms rating scale (time frame: 1 month). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03031977, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Jan 2017; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 6 Nov 2026.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in