Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26607906›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2016

Effects of colonic electrical stimulation using different individual parameter patterns and stimulation sites on gastrointestinal transit time, defecation, and food intake.

Shuo Chen, Liang Liu, Xiaojuan Guo, Shukun Yao, Yanmei Li, Shaoxuan Chen, Yanli Zhang, Wang Chen, Yuhui Du

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Control of colonic motility using electrical stimulation to modulate enteric neural activity.American journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology · 2021
    Article
  3. Electroceuticals in the Gastrointestinal Tract.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

9 authors.

Shuo ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China.
Liang LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, 105th Jiefang Road, Lixia District, Jinan, 250013, People's Republic of China.
Xiaojuan GuoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Chang Gung Hospital, 168th Litang Road, Changping District, Beijing, 102218, People's Republic of China.
Shukun YaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China. shukunyao@163.com.
Yanmei LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China. yanmei.li@yahoo.com.
Shaoxuan ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China.
Yanli ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China.
Wang ChenInstitute of Clinical Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100029, People's Republic of China.
Yuhui DuRishena Technology Development Co. Ltd., 26th Huashan Middle Road, Xinbei District, Changzhou, 213000, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to compare the effects of colonic electrical stimulation (CES) on gastrointestinal transit time (GITT), energy consumption, stool frequency, stool consistency, and food intake using different individual parameter patterns and stimulation sites.

methodsEight beagle dogs underwent surgery and CES. First, CES was conducted to determine the individual parameters with different pulse configurations, based on symptoms. Second, influences on energy consumption and GITT were compared between CES sessions with different pulse configurations. Third, GITT, stool frequency, stool consistency, and food intake were compared to assess the effects of CES at different stimulation sites.

resultsThe individual parameters varied greatly among the dogs. In proximal colon electrical stimulation (PCES) and rectosigmoid colon electrical stimulation (RCES), energy consumption was lower with the constant pulse width mode than with the constant pulse amplitude mode (p = 0.012 and p = 0.018, respectively). There was no statistical difference between the two pulse configurations in GITT assessment. The PCES, RCES, and sequential CES sessions significantly accelerated GITT compared to sham stimulation. There was no statistical difference in GITT between PCES, RCES, and sequential CES sessions. Compared to sham CES session, RCES and sequential CES sessions exhibited significant higher stool frequency (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively), and PCES and RCES sessions inhibited food intake (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002, respectively).

conclusionsConstant pulse width mode is an appropriate pulse configuration for individual CES. At different stimulation sites, CES may exert different effects on stool frequency and food intake. This study provides an experimental basis for the clinical application of CES.

Indexed as

AnimalsColonDefecationDogsEatingElectric StimulationElectrodes, ImplantedFemaleGastrointestinal TransitColonic electrical stimulationConstipationGastrointestinal transit timeIndividual parameter selection

Identifiers

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.