Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22513927›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Plugs for containing faecal incontinence.

Marije Deutekom, Annette C Dobben

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Faecal incontinence: Current knowledges and perspectives.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2016
    Review
  7. Relationship Among Anal Sphincter Injury, Patulous Anal Canal, and Anal Pressures in Patients With Anorectal Disorders.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2015
    Article
  8. Clinical Challenges of Fecal Incontinence in the Elderly.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2015
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Conservative treatment for anal incontinence.Gastroenterology report · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marije DeutekomDepartment of SocialMedicine k2-207, AcademicMedical Center, Amsterdam,Netherlands. marije@baartdelafaille.nl.
Annette C Dobben
Academic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFaecal incontinence is a distressing disorder with high social stigma. Not all people with faecal incontinence can be cured with conservative or surgical treatment and they may need to rely on containment products, such as anal plugs.

objectivesTo assess the performance of different types of anal plugs for containment of faecal incontinence. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 29 February 2012). Reference lists of identified trials were searched and plugs manufacturers were contacted for trials. No language or other limitations were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: This review was limited to randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (including crossovers) of anal plug use for the management of faecal incontinence. TYPES OF

participantsChildren and adults with faecal incontinence.Types of interventions: Any type of anal plug. Comparison interventions might include no treatment, conservative (physical) treatments, nutritional interventions, surgery, pads and other types or sizes of plugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data from the included trials. Authors of all included trials were contacted for clarification concerning methodological issues. MAIN

resultsFour studies with a total of 136 participants were included. Two studies compared the use of plugs versus no plugs, one study compared two sizes of the same brand of plug, and one study compared two brands of plugs. In all included studies there was considerable dropout (in total 48 (35%) dropped out before the end of the study) for varying reasons. Data presented are thus subject to potential bias. 'Pseudo-continence' was, however, achieved by some of those who continued to use plugs, at least in the short-term. In a comparison of two different types of plug, plug loss was less often reported and overall satisfaction was greater during use of polyurethane plugs than polyvinyl-alcohol plugs. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe available data were limited and incomplete, and not all pre-specified outcomes could be evaluated. Consequently, only tentative conclusions are possible. The available data suggest that anal plugs can be difficult to tolerate. However, if they are tolerated they can be helpful in preventing incontinence. Plugs could then be useful in a selected group of people either as a substitute for other forms of management or as an adjuvant treatment option. Plugs come in different designs and sizes; the review showed that the selection of the type of plug can impact on its performance.

Indexed as

Tampons, SurgicalAdultChildEquipment DesignFecal IncontinenceHumansPatient DropoutsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID22513927
OpenAlexW4231851714

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.