Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25619464›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of colorectal disease2015

Home electrical stimulation for women with fecal incontinence: a preliminary randomized controlled trial.

Nira Cohen-Zubary, Rachel Gingold-Belfer, Inna Lambort, Nir Wasserberg, Haim Krissi, Sigal Levy, Yaron Niv, Ram Dickman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of colorectal disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Controversies in fecal incontinence.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Outcomes of GatekeeperTechniques in coloproctology · 2017
    Observational
  6. Fecal Incontinence: Epidemiology, Impact, and Treatment.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nira Cohen-ZubaryPhysiotherapy Service, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Rachel Gingold-Belfer
Inna Lambort
Nir Wasserberg
Haim Krissi
Sigal Levy
Yaron Niv
Ram Dickman
Rabin Medical Center · ILTel Aviv University · ILAcademic College of Tel Aviv-Yafo · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and cost of home electrical stimulation and standardized biofeedback training in females with fecal incontinence

methodsThirty-six females suffering from fecal incontinence were randomized into two groups, matched for mean age (67.45 ± 7.2 years), mean body mass index (kg/m2) (26.2 ± 3.9), mean disease duration (4.1 ± 0.8 years), mean number of births (2.7 ± 1.3), and reports of obstetric trauma (25%). Questionnaires were used to evaluate their demographics, medical, and childbearing history. Subjects were randomized to home electrical stimulation or standardized biofeedback training for a period of 6 weeks. Subjective outcome measures included the frequency of fecal, urine, and gas incontinence by visual analog scale, Vaizey incontinence score, and subjects' levels of fecal incontinence related anxiety. Objective outcome measures included pelvic floor muscle strength assessed by surface electromyography. We also compared the cost of each treatment modality.

resultsOnly females who received home electrical stimulation (HES) reported a significant improvement in Vaizey incontinence score (p = 0.001), anxiety (p = 0.046), and in frequency of leaked solid stool (p = 0.013). A significant improvement in pelvic floor muscle strength was achieved by both groups. HES was much cheaper compared to the cost of standardized biofeedback training (SBT) (US $100 vs. US $220, respectively). Our study comprised a small female population, and the study endpoints did not include objective measures of anorectal function test, such as anorectal manometry, before and after treatment.

conclusionsHome electrical stimulation may offer an alternative to standardized biofeedback training as it is effective and generally well-tolerated therapy for females with fecal incontinence.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyAgedAnxietyBiofeedback, PsychologyCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessFecal IncontinenceFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMuscle StrengthPelvic FloorProspective StudiesQuality of LifeTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25619464
OpenAlexW2023332823

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.