Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12917921›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults.

M Cheetham, M Brazzelli, C Norton, C M A Glazener

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00933465 (Single Blinded Randomised Cross-over Study of Imodium Tablets Versus Imodium Syrup for the Treatment of Faecal Incontinence), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00933465 phase4withdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2009, after this paper: background citation

Single Blinded Randomised Cross-over Study of Imodium Tablets Versus Imodium Syrup for the Treatment of Faecal Incontinence

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustRan2009 to 2010Enrolled0ConditionsFecal IncontinenceArmsImodium (Loperamide Hydrochloride) syrup, Imodium (Loperamide hydrochloride) tablets
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Electrical stimulation for faecal incontinence in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007
    Pooled it
  5. Effects of clonidine in women with fecal incontinence.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2014
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Clinical Challenges of Fecal Incontinence in the Elderly.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2015
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Current and emerging treatment options for fecal incontinence.Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2014
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. [Pelvic floor and anal incontinence. Conservative therapy].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2013
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Outcomes of combination treatment of fecal incontinence in women.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2008
    Article
  18. Fecal incontinence: a review.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2008
    Review
  19. Nonoperative management of fecal incontinence.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2005
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

M CheethamDepartment of General Surgery, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, Watford, Hertfordshire, UK, WD18 0HB.
M Brazzelli
C Norton
C M A Glazener
St. Mark's Hospital · USUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFaecal incontinence is a common symptom which causes significant distress and reduction in quality of life. Available treatment options for faecal incontinence include conservative treatments (biofeedback, pelvic floor muscle training, dietary manipulation or drug therapy) or surgical treatments (e.g. sphincter repair, post anal repair, neosphincter). Drug treatment is often given either alone or in combination with other treatment modalities.

objectivesTo assess the effects of drug therapy for the treatment of faecal incontinence. In particular, to assess the effects of individual drugs relative to placebo or other drugs, and to compare drug therapy with other treatment modalities. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register (January 2003) and the reference lists of relevant articles. Date of the most recent search: January 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of the use of pharmacological agents for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Working independently, reviewers selected studies from the literature, assessed the methodological quality of each trial, and extracted data. MAIN

resultsEleven trials were identified for inclusion in this review. Nine trials were of cross-over design. Seven trials included only people with faecal incontinence related to liquid stool (either chronic diarrhoea or following ileoanal pouch surgery). Three trials (total 58 participants) compared topical phenylephrine gel with placebo. Two trials (56 participants) compared loperamide with placebo. One trial (11 participants) compared loperamide oxide with placebo. One trial (15 participants) compared diphenoxylate plus atropine with placebo. One trial (17 participants) compared sodium valproate with placebo. One trial (30 participants) compared loperamide with codeine with diphenoxylate plus atropine. Two further trials (total 265 participants) assessed the use of lactulose in elderly people.No studies comparing drugs with other treatment modalities were identified. There was limited evidence that antidiarrhoeal drugs and drugs which enhance anal sphincter tone may reduce faecal incontinence in patients with liquid stools. However, the trials were small and of short duration. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe small number of trials identified for this review assessed several different drugs in a variety of patient populations. The focus of most of the included trials was on the treatment of diarrhoea, rather than faecal incontinence. There is little evidence to guide clinicians in the selection of drug therapies for faecal incontinence. Larger, well-designed controlled trials, which include clinically important outcome measures, are required.

Indexed as

AdultDiarrheaFecal IncontinenceHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID12917921
OpenAlexW1604136302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.