ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2015
Dutch evidence statement for pelvic physical therapy in patients with anal incontinence.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fecal Incontinence: The Importance of a Structured Pathophysiological Model.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2022Review
- Percutaneous electrical stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve for the treatment of fecal incontinence: manometric results after 6 months of treatment.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Article
- Traditional Biofeedback vs. Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy-Is One Clearly Superior?Current urology reports · 2019Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo promote agreement among and support the quality of pelvic physiotherapists' skills and clinical reasoning in The Netherlands, an Evidence Statement Anal Incontinence (AI) was developed based on the practice-driven problem definitions outlined. We present a summary of the current state of knowledge and formulate recommendations for a methodical assessment and treatment for patients with AI, and place the evidence in a broader perspective of current developments.
methodsElectronic literature searches were conducted in relevant databases with regard to prevalence, incidence, costs, etiological and prognostic factors, predictors of response to therapy, prevention, assessment, and treatment. The recommendations have been formulated on the basis of scientific evidence and where no evidence was available, recommendations were consensus-based.
resultsThe evidence statement incorporates a practice statement with corresponding notes that clarify the recommendations, and accompanying flowcharts, describing the steps and recommendations with regard to the diagnostic and therapeutic process. The diagnostic process consists of history-taking and physical examination supported by measurement instruments. For each problem category for patients with AI, a certain treatment plan can be distinguished dependent on the presence of pelvic floor dysfunction, awareness of loss of stools, comorbidity, neurological problems, adequate anorectal sensation, and (in)voluntary control. Available evidence and expert opinion support the use of education, pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, and electrostimulation in selected patients.
conclusionsThe evidence statement reflects the current state of knowledge for a methodical and systematic physical therapeutic assessment and treatment for patients with AI.
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.