ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2003
Biofeedback versus electrostimulation in treatment of anal sphincter insufficiency.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electrical stimulation and biofeedback for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2013Pooled it
- Home electrical stimulation for women with fecal incontinence: a preliminary randomized controlled trial.International journal of colorectal disease · 2015Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to prospectively investigate a consecutive patient series (N = 70) with anal sphincter insufficiency and compare the efficacy of biofeedback and electrostimulation as conservative treatment options. Forty patients were treated by biofeedback training, 30 patients by electrostimulation. Patients were not specifically selected for one or the other treatment. Success was evaluated by vector volume manometry, water infusion test, time until stoma closure and clinical incontinence scores. Resting and squeeze pressure and resting and squeeze vector volume all increased significantly after biofeedback training (P < 0.05 and < 0.001). Resting pressure and squeeze vector volume only were significantly improved by electrostimulation (P < 0.05 and < 0.01). The increase in squeeze vector volume was significantly greater in the biofeedback group (P = 0.03). The estimated median time period from commencement of training until stoma closure was 9 months in the biofeedback versus 21 months in the electrostimulation group. Biofeedback training is probably superior to electrostimulation in the conservative treatment of anal sphincter insufficiency, this needs to be confirmed in a randomized study.
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.