ArticleGastroenterology report2014
Temperature-controlled radiofrequency energy in patients with anal incontinence: an interim analysis of worldwide data.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term outcomes of radiofrequency treatment for fecal incontinence: are the results maintainable?International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControlled delivery of radiofrequency energy (SECCA procedure) as treatment for anal incontinence (AI) was introduced 15 years ago. Since then, several clinical studies have emerged. This article evaluates the clinical response and sustainability of SECCA for patients with AI.
methodsOnly original clinical studies retrieved from PubMed and Medline were included. The outcome measures, faecal incontinence scores, definition of response, clinical results and anorectal evaluation were analysed.
resultsTen studies were included, which involved 150 original patients. Three studies reported a long-term follow-up. The one-year follow-up shows a moderate effect, which declines somewhat over time. Only minor temporary side-effects are reported and none of the patients declined treatment.
conclusionSECCA is a safe and well-tolerated procedure that is easy to perform without any serious short- or long-term complications, but with only a moderate clinical effect that declines over time. Results of randomized, sham-controlled controlled trials are awaited.
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.