SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Electrical stimulation for faecal incontinence in adults.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home electrical stimulation for women with fecal incontinence: a preliminary randomized controlled trial.International journal of colorectal disease · 2015Trial
- Can the outcome of pelvic-floor rehabilitation in patients with fecal incontinence be predicted?International journal of colorectal disease · 2008Trial
- A randomized physiotherapy trial in patients with fecal incontinence: design of the PhysioFIT-study.BMC public health · 2007Trial
- Conservative management of persistent postnatal urinary and faecal incontinence: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Trial
- Pelvic floor rehabilitation in the treatment of fecal incontinence.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFaecal incontinence is a particularly embarrassing and distressing condition with significant medical, social and economic implications. Electrical stimulation has been used with apparent success in the treatment of faecal incontinence. However, standards of treatment are still lacking and the magnitude of alleged benefits has yet to be established.
objectivesTo determine the effects of electrical stimulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase and reference lists of potentially eligible articles up to November 1999. Date of the most recent searches: November 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating electrical stimulation in adults with faecal incontinence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and two reviewers independently extracted data from the included trial. A wide range of outcome measures were considered. MAIN
resultsOnly one eligible trial with 40 participants was identified. It was a randomised trial, but it suffered from methodological drawbacks and did not follow up patients beyond the end of the trial period. Findings from this trial suggest that electrical stimulation with anal biofeedback and exercises provides more short-term benefits than vaginal biofeedback and exercises for women with obstetric-related faecal incontinence. No further conclusions could be drawn from the data available. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsAt present, there are insufficient data to allow reliable conclusions to be drawn on the effects of electrical stimulation in the management of faecal incontinence. There is a suggestion that electrical stimulation may have a therapeutic effect, but this is not certain. Larger, more generalisable trials are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.