↓ Skip to main content

Chewing gum for enhancing early recovery of bowel function after caesarean section

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
70 tweeters
facebook
29 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chewing gum for enhancing early recovery of bowel function after caesarean section
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011562.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edna Pereira Gomes Morais, Rachel Riera, Gustavo JM Porfírio, Cristiane R Macedo, Vivian Sarmento Vasconcelos, Alexsandra de Souza Pedrosa, Maria R Torloni, Pereira Gomes Morais, Edna, Riera, Rachel, Porfírio, Gustavo Jm, Macedo, Cristiane R, Sarmento Vasconcelos, Vivian, de Souza Pedrosa, Alexsandra, Torloni, Maria R, Porfírio, Gustavo JM

Abstract

Caesarean sections (CS) are the most frequent major surgery in the world. A transient impairment of bowel motility is expected after CS. Although this usually resolves spontaneously within a few days, it can cause considerable discomfort, require symptomatic medication and delay hospital discharge, thus increasing costs. Chewing gum in the immediate postoperative period is a simple intervention that may be effective in enhancing recovery of bowel function in other types of abdominal surgeries. To assess the effects of chewing gum to reduce the duration of postoperative ileus and to enhance postoperative recovery after a CS. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 June 2016), LILACs (20 June 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (20 June 2016), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (20 June 2016) and the reference lists of retrieved studies. All randomised controlled trials comparing chewing gum versus usual care, for women in the first 24 hours after a CS. We included studies published in abstract form only.Quasi-randomised, cross-over or cluster-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Two review authors independently selected the studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias following standard Cochrane methods. We present dichotomous outcome results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcome results as mean differences (MD) and 95% CI. We pooled the results of similar studies using a random-effects model in case of important heterogeneity. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence. We included 17 randomised trials (3149 participants) conducted in nine different countries. Seven studies (1325 women) recruited exclusively women undergoing elective CS and five studies (833 women) only included women having a primary CS. Ten studies (1731 women) used conventional feeding protocols (nil by mouth until the return of intestinal function). The gum-chewing regimen varied among studies, in relation to its initiation (immediately after CS, up to 12 hours later), duration of each session (from 15 to 60 minutes) and number of sessions per day (three to more than six). All the studies were classified as having a high risk of bias due to the nature of the intervention, women could not be blinded and most of the outcomes were self-reported.Primary outcomes of this review: for the women that chewed gum, the time to passage of first flatus was seven hours shorter than those women in the 'usual care' control group (MD -7.09 hours, 95% CI -9.27 to -4.91 hours; 2399 women; 13 studies; random-effects Tau² = 14.63, I² = 95%, very low-quality evidence). This effect was consistent in all subgroup analyses (primary and repeat CS, time spent chewing gum per day, early and conventional feeding protocols, elective and non-elective CS and time after CS when gum-chewing was initiated). The rate of ileus was on average over 60% lower in the chewing-gum group compared to the control (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80; 1139 participants; four studies; I² = 39%, low-quality evidence). Tolerance to gum-chewing appeared to be high. Three women in one study complained about the chewing gum (but no further information was provided) and none of the studies reported adverse effects (eight studies, 925 women, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomes of this review: the time to passage of faeces occurred on average nine hours earlier in the intervention group (MD -9.22 hours, 95% CI -11.49 to -6.95 hours; 2016 participants; 11 studies; random-effects Tau² = 12.53, I² = 93%, very low-quality evidence). The average duration of hospital stay was shorter in the intervention compared to the control group (MD -0.36 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.18 days; 1489 participants; seven studies; random-effects Tau² = 0.04, I² = 92%). The first intestinal sounds were heard earlier in the intervention than in the control group (MD -4.56 hours, 95% CI -6.18 to -2.93 hours; 1729 participants; nine studies; random-effects Tau² = 5.41, I² = 96%). None of the studies assessed women's satisfaction in relation to having to chew gum. The need for analgesia or antiemetic agents did not differ between the intervention and control groups (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.13; 726 participants; three studies; random-effects Tau² = 0.79, I² = 69%). This review found 17 randomised controlled trials (involving 3149 women). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for time to first passage of flatus and of faeces and for adverse effects/intolerance to gum chewing because of the high risk of bias of the studies (due to lack of blinding and self-report). For time to first flatus and faeces, we downgraded the quality of the evidence further because of the high heterogeneity in these meta-analyses and the potential for publication bias based on the visual inspection of the funnel plots. The quality of the evidence for adverse effects/tolerance to gum chewing and for ileus was downgraded because of the small number of events. The quality of the evidence for ileus was further downgraded due to the unclear risk of bias for the assessors evaluating this outcome.The available evidence suggests that gum chewing in the immediate postoperative period after a CS is a well tolerated intervention that enhances early recovery of bowel function. However the overall quality of the evidence is very low to low.Further research is necessary to establish the optimal regimen of gum-chewing (initiation, number and duration of sessions per day) to enhance bowel function recovery and to assess potential adverse effects of and women's satisfaction with this intervention. New studies also need to assess the compliance of the participants to the recommended gum-chewing instructions. Future large, well designed and conducted studies, with better methodological and reporting quality, will help to inform future updates of this review and enhance the body of evidence for this intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 24%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Other 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 106. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2017.
All research outputs
#85,913
of 8,597,291 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#234
of 8,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,772
of 251,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,597,291 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 251,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.