Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17636759›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation in adults.

G Mowatt, C Glazener, M Jarrett

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 13 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Plugs for containing faecal incontinence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  11. Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. UEG Week 2019 Poster Presentations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019
    Article
  18. Rectal hyposensitivity.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2012
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

G MowattUniversity of Aberdeen, Health Services Research Unit, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK, AB25 2ZD. g.mowatt@abdn.ac.uk
C Glazener
M Jarrett
University of Aberdeen · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFaecal incontinence and constipation are disabling conditions that reduce quality of life. If conservative treatment fails, one option is sacral nerve stimulation (SNS), a minimally invasive technique allowing modulation of the nerves and muscles of the pelvic floor and hindgut.

objectivesTo assess the effects of SNS for faecal incontinence and constipation in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 24 April 2007) and the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing the effects of SNS for faecal incontinence or constipation in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed the methodological quality of the included studies, and undertook data extraction. MAIN

resultsThree crossover studies were included. Two, enrolling 34 (Leroi) and two participants (Vaizey), assessed the effects of SNS for faecal incontinence, and one (Kenefick), enrolling two participants, assessed SNS for constipation. In the study by Leroi, following the crossover period, participants, while still blinded, chose the period of stimulation they had preferred. Outcomes at different time points were reported separately for 19 participants who preferred the 'on' and five who preferred the 'off' period. For the group of 19, the median (range) episodes of faecal incontinence per week fell from 1.7 (0 to 9) during the 'off' period to 0.7 (0 to 5) during the 'on' period; for the group of five, however, the median (range) rose from 1.7 (0 to 11) during the 'off' period compared with 3.7 (0 to 11) during the 'on' period. Vaizey reported an average of six, and one, episodes of faecal incontinence per week during the 'off' and 'on' periods respectively. Leroi reported that four of 27 participants experienced an adverse event resulting in removal of the stimulator; Vaizey did not report adverse events. For SNS for constipation, during the 'off' crossover period the participants experienced an average of two bowel movements per week, compared with five during the 'on' period. Abdominal pain and bloating occurred 79% of the time during the 'off' period compared with 33% during the 'on' period. No adverse events occurred. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe very limited evidence from the included studies suggests that SNS can improve continence in selected people with faecal incontinence, and reduce symptoms in selected people with constipation. However temporary, percutaneous stimulation for a two-to-three week period does not always successfully identify those for whom a permanent implant will be beneficial. Larger, good quality randomised crossover trials are needed to allow the effects of SNS for these conditions to be assessed with more certainty.

Indexed as

AdultConstipationCross-Over StudiesElectric Stimulation TherapyElectrodes, ImplantedFecal IncontinenceFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareSacrumSpinal Nerves

Identifiers

PMID17636759
OpenAlexW1819833485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.