Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2008
Can the outcome of pelvic-floor rehabilitation in patients with fecal incontinence be predicted?
Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics Associated With Clinically Important Treatment Responses in Women Undergoing Nonsurgical Therapy for Fecal Incontinence.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Trial
- GI factors, potential to predict prostate motion during radiotherapy; a scoping review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Comparison of Anorectal Manometry Testing in Left Lateral and Lithotomy Positions.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2020Article
- Hypothesized summative anal physiology score correlates but poorly predicts incontinence severity.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Pelvic floor rehabilitation in the treatment of fecal incontinence.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2014Review
- Current management of fecal incontinence: choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Review
- Rehabilitation of fecal incontinence: what is the influence of anal sphincter lesions?Techniques in coloproctology · 2013Article
- Critical reappraisal of anorectal function tests in patients with faecal incontinence who have failed conservative treatment.International journal of colorectal disease · 2012Article
- The relationship between etiology, symptom severity and indications of surgery in cases of anal incontinence: a 25-year analysis of 1,046 patients at a tertiary coloproctology practice.Techniques in coloproctology · 2011Article
- The Long-term Clinical Efficacy of Biofeedback Therapy for Patients With Constipation or Fecal Incontinence.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2010Article
- Discriminative value of anorectal manometry in clinical practice.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePelvic-floor rehabilitation does not provide the same degree of relief in all fecal incontinent patients. We aimed at studying prospectively the ability of tests to predict the outcome of pelvic-floor rehabilitation in patients with fecal incontinence. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred fifty consecutive patients (228 women) underwent medical history and a standardized series of tests, including physical examination, anal manometry, pudendal nerve latency testing, anal sensitivity testing, rectal capacity measurement, defecography, endoanal sonography, and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging. Subsequently, patients were referred for pelvic-floor rehabilitation. Outcome of pelvic-floor rehabilitation was quantified by the Vaizey incontinence score. Linear regression analyses were used to identify candidate predictors and to construct a multivariable prediction model for the posttreatment Vaizey score.
resultsAfter pelvic-floor rehabilitation, the mean baseline Vaizey score (18, SD+/-3) was reduced with 3.2 points (p<0.001). In addition to the baseline Vaizey score, three elements from medical history were significantly associated with the posttreatment Vaizey score (presence of passive incontinence, thin stool consistency, primary repair of a rupture after vaginal delivery at childbed) (R2, 0.18). The predictive value was significantly but marginally improved by adding the following test results: perineal and/or perianal scar tissue (physical examination), and maximal squeeze pressure (anal manometry; R2, 0.20; p=0.05).
conclusionAdditional tests have a limited role in predicting success of pelvic-floor rehabilitation in patients with fecal incontinence.
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.