Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics and quality appraisal of included studies

From: Long-term outcomes and quality of life of patients with Hirschsprung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Year

Country

Study design

Age range of patients (years)

Number of patients older than 10 years

Rectosigmoid aganglionosis (n)

Long-segment (n)

Total colonic aganglionosis (n)

Surgery approach

Age at surgery (Mean, interquartile range), (year)

Associated congenital disease or syndrome (n)

Fecal incontinence (n)

Constipation (n)

Urinary system dysfunction (n)

Quality of appraisal (NOS/AHRQ checklist) a

Granström et al. [25]

2015

Sweden

Case-control

20–43

39

37

/

2

Soave, Duhamel, Sphincteromyectomy, Ileostomy, Sigmoid colostomy.

1 (1, 17)

Down syndrome (n = 1), hypospadias (n = 2), congenital central hypoventilation syndrome (n = 1) and Fallot’s striad (n = 1)

/

/

3

S: 3, C: 1, E: 3

Total: 7

Jarvi et al. [21]

2010

Finland

Case-control

35–48

89

79

4

1

Soave, Duhamel, State Rehbein, Swenson, Colonal pull-through.

2.2 (0.8, 2.0)

Down syndrome (n = 1), cartilage hair hypoplasia (n = 1), and multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (n = 1).

12

27

/

S: 3, C: 1, E: 2

Total: 6

Neuvonen et al. [22]

2017

Finland

Case-control

18–32

33

66

7

3

Transanal endorectal pull-through (TEPT), TEPT with laparotomy/laparoscopy, Ileoanal pull-through; Definitive endostomy.

0.35 (0, 9.8)

Down syndrome (n = 11), Mowat-Wilson syndrome (n = 4), cartilage-hairhypoplasia (n = 2), Currarino syndrome (n = 1), Waardenburg-Shah syndrome (n = 1), and marker-chromosome syndrome (n = 1).

1

2

/

S: 4, C: 1, E: 2

Total: 7

Diseth et al. [15]

1997

Norway

Case-control

10–20

19

12

/

3

Duhamel

0.7 (0.1, 5)

Unclear

6

3

/

S: 3, C: 1, E: 3

Total: 7

Conway et al. [29]

2007

UK

Cohort study

16–23

78

63

15

0

Duhamel

0.75

Unclear

/

/

/

S: 2, C: 0, O: 2

Total: 4

Athanasakos et al. [27]

2006

Australia

Cross-sectional

13–24

23

50

8

14

Soave, Duhamel.

Unclear

Down syndrome (n = 2)

11

5

/

Yes: 6, No: 0, Unclear: 5

Heikkinen et al. 1995 & Heikkinen et al. 1997 [23, 24]

1995

Finland & UK

Cohort study

24–38

100

95

4

1

Duhamel, Swenson, State-Rehbein, Soave.

<  1 year old: 38, 1–3 years old: 37, older than 3 years old: 25

Down syndrome (n = 1), Chondroectodermal hypoplasia (n = 1), Marfan’s syndrome (n = 1).

14

1

/

S: 3, C: 1, O: 2

Total: 6

Mills et al. [30]

2008

Canada

Cross-sectional

13–18

16

34

10

3

Duhamel, Soave, Swenson, Transnal.

Unclear

Down syndrome (n = 3), cardiac anomalies (n = 2). Cleft palate (n = 1), ureteric reflux (n = 1), autism (n = 1), inguinal hernia (n = 1), congenital ptosis (n = 1), hypothyroidism (n = 1), and pyloric stenosis (n = 1),

1

1

0

Yes: 8, No: 1, Unclear: 2

Catto-Smith et al. [28]

2007

Australia

Cross-sectional

12–27

32

/

/

/

Soave, Duhamel, Swenson, Unknown.

Unclear

Down syndrome (n = 10)

7

18

4

Yes: 8, No: 1, Unclear: 2

Ieiri et al. [31]

2010

Japan

Cross-sectional

19–55

43

34

4

3

Z-shaped anastomosis (modified Duhamel procedure), Swenson, Martin.

Unclear

Unclear

15

2

5

Yes: 7, No: 1, Unclear: 3

Gunnarsdo’ttir et al. [4, 26]

2010

Sweden

Cross-sectional

18–45

42

29

8

3

Duhamel, Duhamel-Martin modification, Ileorectal anastomosis.

0.58 (0,11.6)

Down syndrome (n = 6)

13

5

2

Yes: 9, No: 0, Unclear: 2

Niramis et al. [32]

2008

Thailand

Cross-sectional

10–19

111

95

16

0

Duhamel, Soave, Swenson.

10–15 years old: 1 (0.5,13); older than 15 years old: 1.3 (0.6, 11)

Down syndrome (n = 9), cerebral palsy (n = 4) b

17

11

/

Yes: 6, No: 2, Unclear: 3

  1. aThe NOS checklist was used to evaluate cohort studies and case-control studies, while the AHRQ checklist was used for cross-sectional studies. For cohort and case-control study, the total score of the NOS is 9, with higher score indicating higher-quality. S: Selection, C: Comparability, E: Exposure, O: Outcome. Score lower than 5 was considered low, 5–6 medium, and 7–9 high quality. For cross-sectional study, the overall quality of reports of the included studies was marginal to fair (Additional file 3). For example, most of the studies failed to report whether the patients were consecutively enrolled, which could be subjective to selection bias
  2. bIn this study, patients with associated malformations were excluded for statistical analysis