Leonurus cardiaca is a perennial plant indigenous to central Europe and Scandinavia, but it is also found in the area spanning temperate Russia to central Asia. It has been introduced to North America and has become established locally in the wild. Motherwort (Leonuri cardiacae herba) consists of aerial parts of Leonurus cardiaca gathered during the flowering period, dried at 35 °C and, according to European Pharmacopoeia 7th edition, should contain a minimum of 0.2% flavonoids, expressed as hyperoside. Compounds belonging to the group of monoterpenes, diterpenes, triterpenes, nitrogen- containing compounds, phenylpropanoids, flavonoids and phenolic acids, as well as volatile oils, sterols and tannins, have been identified in motherwort. Traditionally, extracts of the herb have been used internally, mainly for nervous heart conditions and digestive disorders. However, they have also been used for bronchial asthma, climacteric symptoms and amenorrhoea, as well as externally in wounds and skin inflammations. Mild negative chronotropic, hypotonic and sedative effects can be attributed to the herb and preparations thereof. Pharmacological studies have confirmed its antibacterial, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity, as well as its effects on the heart and the circulatory system. Sedative and hypotensive activity has been demonstrated in clinical trials.

We updated our 2010 systematic review on the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of constipation in children. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases; clinical trial registries; and reference lists of included studies were searched to February 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in children, with no language restriction. The primary outcome measure was treatment success, as defined by the investigators. We included seven RCTs with a total of 515 participants. Included trials were heterogeneous with respect to study population, probiotic strains, dosages, study duration, and follow-up. Pooled results of two RCTs showed no significant difference between the Lactobacillus rhamnosus casei Lcr35 and placebo groups with respect to treatment success. Other probiotics were studied in single trials only. There was no significant difference between the probiotic and control groups with respect to treatment success. While some probiotic strains showed some effects on defecation frequency, none of the probiotics had beneficial effects on frequency of fecal incontinence or frequency of abdominal pain. Adverse events were rare and not serious. Conclusion: Limited evidence does not support the use of any of currently evaluated probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children. What is Known: • Conventional treatment for functional constipation in children does not always provide satisfying improvement. • Probiotics have been suggested as potential treatment modalities for this condition. What is New: • Probiotics are ineffective for the management of functional constipation in children in terms of treatment success, frequency of fecal incontinence, and frequency of abdominal pain. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00431-017-2972-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

IntroductionRectal faecal impaction (RFI) from functional constipation is a common problem in children. Maintenance therapy should start after successful disimpaction. However, there is uncertainty with regard to the optimal disimpaction regimen.AimWe systematically evaluated the effect of polyethylene glycol (PEG) compared to enema for treating RFI.Material and methodsThe MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, with no language restrictions, were searched up to July 2014 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of PEG compared with enema for disimpaction in children with functional constipation. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.ResultsTwo RCTs, involving 170 children aged 1 to 17 years, met the inclusion criteria. The studies were generally low in methodological quality. Compared with the enema group, the PEG 3350 group had significantly reduced chance for treatment success, but the difference was of a borderline statistical significance (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.7–0.99). The use of PEG was also more likely to increase defecation frequency, but increased the risk of watery stools and increased faecal incontinence. Other outcomes, in general, were similar in both groups.ConclusionsCurrent evidence does not allow us to conclude which intervention is more effective for treating RFI in children with functional constipation. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of trials and the low quality of reporting in these trials, high or unknown risk of bias, and sparse data. Further high-quality, adequately powered RCTs are needed to determine the optimal management.