• Increase Font Size
  • Decrease Font Size
  • View as PDF

SCI: Fiber (2003)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:
  • Overview of clinical issues in spinal cord injury for residents and others, with guidelines for evaluation and management.
  • Mission is to disseminate knowledge and educate health care professionals.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • None given.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • None given.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Methods for article inclusion not mentioned.

Design

Monograph, Medical Opinion.

Blinding Used (if applicable):  Not applicable

Intervention (if applicable):  Not applicable

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis not completed.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements:  not applicable

Dependent Variables: 

  • Bladder management
  • Bowel management
  • Pressure ulcers.

Independent Variables:  not applicable

Control Variables:  not applicable

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N:  not applicable

Attrition (final N):  not applicable

Age:  not applicable

Ethnicity:  not applicable

Other relevant demographics:

Anthropometrics:

Location:  worldwide studies

 

Summary of Results:

Fiber

Proper diet is an integral part of successful overall bowel management. Soft bulk stools are more likely to decrease bowel transit time. Toward this goal, the diet should contain adequate amounts of fluids and fiber. A total of 15 grams of dietary fiber from a variety of sources is probably ideal.

 

Fluid

Adequate fluid intake (2,500cc to 3,000 cc per day is ideal) is also essential to a good bowel program. The recommended fluid intake, however, must be consistent with the bladder management program.

 

Pressure Ulcer

  • Protein: 1.25-1.5 gm/kg of IBW per day
  • Calories: 31-34 calories/kg of IBW per day
  • Iron: ferrous sulfate 300 mg tid or ferrous gluconate 650 mg tid
  • Zinc oxide: 25-50 mg qd
  • Vitamin C: 500-1000 mg qd
  • Vitamin A: 20,000-25,000 IU qd.
Author Conclusion:

Often management strategies given reflect the practices of the contributors, since many issues in SCI have not been investigated in a scientific manner.

Funding Source:
Government: NIDRR
Reviewer Comments:
  • The monograph does not purport to be scientifically based. It is a resource for common practice up to 2000 and was supported by a National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) grant to the New England Regional Spinal Cord Injury Center at Boston Medical Center.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? N/A
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? Yes
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? N/A
 
Validity Questions
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? Yes
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? No
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? No
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? No
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? Yes
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? Yes
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? No
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? Yes
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? Yes
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes