Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26193665›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Plugs for containing faecal incontinence.

Marije Deutekom, Annette C Dobben

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Insert devices for faecal incontinence.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. The mechanisms and management of fecal incontinence in geriatric neurological diseases.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Technology for managing incontinence: What are the research priorities?Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Diagnosis and Management of Fecal Incontinence.Current gastroenterology reports · 2018
    Review
  10. Surgical Interventions and the Use of Device-Aided Therapy for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence and Defecatory Disorders.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2017
    Review
  11. Evidence-Based Update on Treatments of Fecal Incontinence in Women.Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America · 2016
    Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marije DeutekomDepartment of Social Medicine k2-207, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1105 AZ.
Annette C Dobben
Academic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFaecal incontinence is a distressing disorder with high social stigma. Not all people with faecal incontinence can be cured with conservative or surgical treatment and they may need to rely on containment products, such as anal plugs.

objectivesTo assess the performance of different types of anal plugs for containment of faecal incontinence. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 26 May 2015). Reference lists of identified trials were searched and plug manufacturers were contacted for trials. No language or other limitations were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: this review was limited to randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (including crossovers) of anal plug use for the management of faecal incontinence. TYPES OF

participantschildren and adults with faecal incontinence.Types of interventions: any type of anal plug. Comparison interventions might include no treatment, conservative (physical) treatments, nutritional interventions, surgery, pads and other types or sizes of plugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data from the included trials. Authors of all included trials were contacted for clarification concerning methodological issues. MAIN

resultsFour studies with a total of 136 participants were included. Two studies compared the use of plugs versus no plugs, one study compared two sizes of the same brand of plug, and one study compared two brands of plugs. In all included studies there was considerable dropout (in total 48 (35%) dropped out before the end of the study) for varying reasons. Data presented are thus subject to potential bias. 'Pseudo-continence' was, however, achieved by some of those who continued to use plugs, at least in the short-term. In a comparison of two different types of plug, plug loss was less often reported and overall satisfaction was greater during use of polyurethane plugs than polyvinyl-alcohol plugs. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe available data were limited and incomplete, and not all pre-specified outcomes could be evaluated. Consequently, only tentative conclusions are possible. The available data suggest that anal plugs can be difficult to tolerate. However, if they are tolerated they can be helpful in preventing incontinence. Plugs could then be useful in a selected group of people either as a substitute for other forms of management or as an adjuvant treatment option. Plugs come in different designs and sizes; the review showed that the selection of the type of plug can impact on its performance.

Indexed as

Tampons, SurgicalAdultChildEquipment DesignFecal IncontinenceHumansPatient DropoutsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26193665
PMCPMC9058784
OpenAlexW1931080409

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.