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.
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).
- Conditions
- Stroke Rehabilitation
- 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 group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| visceral mobilization | Experimental | Conventional 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 mobilization | Sham comparator | Conventional 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.
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)
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.
- First posted26 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2016
- Primary completionOct 2016
- Study completionDec 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Stroke RehabilitationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Sorocaba
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Luciane Cruz Lopes, University of Sorocaba
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
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Jan 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Visceral Mobilization and Functional Constipation in Stroke Survivors: a Randomized, Controlled, Double-blind, Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03031977
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Hugo Fisioterapia
- Conditions
- Stroke Rehabilitation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of SorocabaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2016
- Primary completion
- Oct 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 Jan 2017 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
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).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| visceral mobilization | Experimental | Other: visceral mobilizationConventional 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. |
| sham mobilization | Sham comparator | Other: visceral mobilizationConventional 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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 40 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- 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
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Incision or tumor in the abdominal region
- fractures
- rheumatic disease
- infectious process in the acute phase
- inability to understand the proposed evaluations
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| visceral mobilization | Other | sham mobilization, visceral mobilization |
Primary outcome
intestinal symptoms rating scale
Time frame: 1 month
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.
1 secondary outcome
plantar pressure evaluation
Time frame: 1 month
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Jan 2017.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 39470206Todd 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.
Related trials for Stroke Rehabilitation
Not yet recruitingEarly Phase 1
Early Botulinum Toxin for Muscle Stiffness Reduction in First-Time Stroke Patients: Improving Recovery and Independence
Spasticity, Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Dynamic Stabilometry Combined With Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Balance and Motor Recovery After Ischemic Stroke
Hemiparesis, Ischemic Stroke
Recruiting
Neuromodulation-Enhanced Use of RObotic BALANCE Training to Improve Balance Function in Individuals With Stroke
Stroke, Stroke (CVA) or Transient Ischemic Attack
Enrolling by invitation
Evaluation of an Adaptive Neurotechnology Based on Motor Imagery in Patients Who Suffered a Left Hemisphere Stroke
Stroke, Brain Computer Interface
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Enhancing Resilience Among Patients With Stroke: Implementation of High Intensity Home-based Rehabilitation
Stroke, Stroke Rehabilitation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
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.