Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26361615›Full record

ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2015

Biofeedback Therapy Before Ileostomy Closure in Patients Undergoing Sphincter-Saving Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Pilot Study.

Jeong-Ki Kim, Byeong Geon Jeon, Yoon Suk Song, Mi Sun Seo, Yoon-Hye Kwon, Ji Won Park, Seung-Bum Ryoo, Seung-Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Low anterior resection syndrome.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2023
    Review
  8. [Low anterior resection syndrome-Causes and treatment approaches].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeong-Ki KimDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Byeong Geon JeonDaejin Medical Center Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Yoon Suk SongDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Mi Sun SeoDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yoon-Hye KwonDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ji Won ParkDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ; Daejin Medical Center Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital, Seongnam, Korea. ; Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Seung-Bum RyooDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seung-Yong JeongDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ; Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. ; Colorectal Cancer Center, Seoul National University Cancer Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Kyu Joo ParkDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study prospectively investigated the effects of biofeedback therapy on objective anorectal function and subjective bowel function in patients after sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer.

methodsSixteen patients who underwent an ileostomy were randomized into two groups, one receiving conservative management with the Kegel maneuver and the other receiving active biofeedback before ileostomy closure. Among them, 12 patients (mean age, 57.5 years; range, 38 to 69 years; 6 patients in each group) completed the study. Conservative management included lifestyle modifications, Kegel exercises, and medication. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after ileostomy closure by using anal manometry, modified Wexner Incontinence Scores (WISs), and fecal incontinence quality of life (FI-QoL) scores.

resultsBefore the ileostomy closure, the groups did not differ in baseline clinical characteristics or resting manometric parameters. After 12 months of follow-up, the biofeedback group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the mean maximum squeezing pressure (from 146.3 to 178.9, P = 0.002). However, no beneficial effect on the WIS was noted for biofeedback compared to conservative management alone. Overall, the FI-QoL scores were increased significantly in both groups after ileostomy closure (P = 0.006), but did not differ significantly between the two groups.

conclusionAlthough the biofeedback therapy group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the maximum squeezing pressure, significant improvements in the WISs and the FI-QoL scores over time were noted in both groups. The study was terminated early because no therapeutic benefit of biofeedback had been demonstrated.

Indexed as

Fecal incontinenceFeedbackIleostomyManometry

Identifiers

PMID26361615
PMCPMC4564665
OpenAlexW2141405347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.