SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Plugs for containing faecal incontinence.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Faecal Incontinence-A UEG/ESCP/ESNM/ESPCG collaboration.United European gastroenterology journal · 2022Guideline
- Insert devices for faecal incontinence.Techniques in coloproctology · 2021Pooled it
- The mechanisms and management of fecal incontinence in geriatric neurological diseases.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2026Review
- The Japan Society of Coloproctology Practice Guidelines for Fecal Incontinence 2024 (Revised Second Edition).Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2026Review
- Technology for managing incontinence: What are the research priorities?Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical outcomes with of the Contix Faecal Incontinence Management System: preliminary results.Annals of coloproctology · 2023Article
- Rapid priority setting exercise on faecal incontinence for Cochrane Incontinence.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Japanese Practice Guidelines for Fecal Incontinence Part 2-Examination and Conservative Treatment for Fecal Incontinence- English Version.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2021Review
- Diagnosis and Management of Fecal Incontinence.Current gastroenterology reports · 2018Review
- 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 · 2017Review
- Evidence-Based Update on Treatments of Fecal Incontinence in Women.Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America · 2016Review
- Update on the Management of Fecal Incontinence for the Gastroenterologist.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.