Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2014
Clinical response and sustainability of treatment with temperature-controlled radiofrequency energy (Secca) in patients with faecal incontinence: 3 years follow-up.
Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Pooled it
- Application progress of radiofrequency (RF) therapy in pelvic floor disorders (PFDs): a narrative review focusing on randomized controlled trials.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2025Review
- Regenerative medicine for anal incontinence: a review of regenerative therapies beyond cells.International urogynecology journal · 2021Review
- Temperature-controlled radiofrequency energy in patients with anal incontinence: an interim analysis of worldwide data.Gastroenterology report · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControlled delivery of radio frequent energy (Secca) has been suggested as treatment for faecal incontinence (FI).
objectiveThe objective of the study is to evaluate clinical response and sustainability of Secca for FI.
designThis is a prospective cohort study. PATIENTS: This study involved patients who had failed full conservative management for FI.
interventionsThis study was performed between 2005 and 2010.
main outcome measuresFI was scored using the Vaizey score (VS). A clinically significant response to Secca was defined as ≥50 % reduction in incontinence score. Impact of FI on quality of life (QOL) was measured using the FIQL. Data was obtained at baseline, at 6 months and at 1 and 3 years. Anal endosonography and anal manometry were performed at 3 months and compared to baseline.
resultsThirty-one patients received Secca. During follow-up, 5/31 (16 %), 3/31 (10 %) and 2/31 (6 %) of patients maintained a clinically significant response after the Secca procedure. Mean VS of all patients was 18 (SD 3), 14 (SD 4), 14 (SD 4) and 15 (SD 4), at baseline, 6 months and 1 and 3 years. No increases in anorectal pressures or improvements in rectal compliance were found. Coping improved between baseline and t = 6 months. No predictive factors for success were found. LIMITATIONS: This is a non-randomised study design.
conclusionThis prospective non-randomised trial showed disappointing outcomes of the Secca procedure for the treatment of FI. The far minority of patients reported a clinically significant response of seemingly temporary nature. Secca might be valuable in combination with other interventions for FI, but this should be tested in strictly controlled randomised trials.
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.