Trial reportObstetrics and gynecology2015
Standard compared with mnemonic counseling for fecal incontinence: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 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
- Exploring the association between type 2 diabetes and fecal incontinence in american adults: insights from a large cross-sectional study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Article
- Anal Intercourse and Fecal Incontinence: Evidence from the 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate whether women who underwent mnemonic counseling had better recall of fecal incontinence therapies at 2 months and if mnemonic counseling resulted in greater satisfaction with physician counseling and improvement in quality of life when compared with a group who underwent standard counseling.
methodsCounseling-naive women with fecal incontinence were recruited from an academic urogynecology clinic. Women underwent physical examinations, completed the Quality of the Physician-Patient Interaction, recorded fecal incontinence treatment options they recalled, and completed the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and Manchester Health Questionnaire immediately after counseling and again at 2 months.
resultsNinety women consented to participate, were randomized, and completed baseline questionnaires. At baseline, women did not differ in age, ethnicity, education, Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, or Manchester Health Questionnaire scores. After counseling, the mnemonic group reported higher satisfaction on Quality of the Physician-Patient Interaction (66.4±6.5 compared with 62.2±10.7, P=.03). Ninety percent (81/90) of women followed up at 2 months. Our primary endpoint, 2-month recall of fecal incontinence treatments, was not different between groups (2.3±1.6 mnemonic counseling compared with 1.8±1.0 standard counseling; P=.08). Secondary endpoints for the mnemonic group reported greater improvement on total Manchester Health Questionnaire (P=.02), emotional (P=.03), sleep (0.045), role limitations (P<.01), and physical limitations (P=.04) when compared with the standard group.
conclusionFecal incontinence counseling with a mnemonic aid did not improve recall at 2 months but improved patient satisfaction and quality of life at 2 months.
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.