Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25895520›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2015

Treatment efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation in slow transit constipation: a two-phase, double-blind randomized controlled crossover study.

Phil G Dinning, Linda Hunt, Vicki Patton, Teng Zhang, Michal Szczesniak, Val Gebski, Mike Jones, Peter Stewart, David Z Lubowski, Ian J Cook

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Seoul Consensus on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Functional Constipation].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Nonpharmacologic Treatment of Chronic Constipation.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Electroceuticals in the Gastrointestinal Tract.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Phil G Dinning1] Faculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia [2] Department of Gastroenterology and Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia.
Linda HuntFaculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Vicki Patton1] Faculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia [2] Department of Anorectal Physiology, St George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Teng ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Michal SzczesniakFaculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Val GebskiDepartment of Biostatistics and Research Methodology, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mike JonesDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie University, Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Peter StewartDepartment of Surgery, The Concord Repatriate Hospital, Concord, New South Wales, Australia.
David Z Lubowski1] Faculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia [2] Department of Anorectal Physiology, St George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Ian J Cook1] Faculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia [2] Department of Gastroenterology, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
St George Hospital · AUUNSW Sydney · AUNational Health and Medical Research Council · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a potential treatment for constipation refractory to standard therapies. However, there have been no randomized controlled studies examining its efficacy. In patients with slow transit constipation, we evaluated the efficacy of suprasensory and subsensory SNS compared with sham, in a prospective, 18-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-phase crossover study. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who, on more than 2 days/week for at least 2 of 3 weeks, reported a bowel movement associated with a feeling of complete evacuation.

methodsAfter 3 weeks of temporary peripheral nerve evaluation (PNE), all patients had permanent implantation and were randomized to subsensory/sham (3 weeks each) and then re-randomized to suprasensory/sham (3 weeks each) with a 2-week washout period between each arm. Daily stool dairies were kept, and quality of life (QoL; SF36) was measured at the end of each arm.

resultsBetween November 2006 and March 2012, 234 constipated patients were assessed, of whom 59 were willing and deemed eligible to participate (4 male; median age 42 years). Of the 59 patients, 16 (28%) responded to PNE. Fifty-five patients went on to permanent SNS implantation. The proportion of patients satisfying the primary outcome measure did not differ between suprasensory (30%) and sham (21%) stimulations, nor between subsensory (25%) and sham (25%) stimulations. There were no significant changes in QoL scores.

conclusionsIn patients with refractory slow transit constipation, SNS did not improve the frequency of complete bowel movements over the 3-week active period.

Indexed as

AdultAgedConstipationCross-Over StudiesDefecationDouble-Blind MethodElectric Stimulation TherapyFemaleGastrointestinal TransitHumansImplantable NeurostimulatorsLumbosacral PlexusMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID25895520
OpenAlexW2077800346

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.