ReviewAnnals of coloproctology2017
Electrophysiological Basis of Fecal Incontinence and Its Implications for Treatment.
Review in Annals of coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoflip vs high-definition manometry in the assessment of fecal incontinence: A data-driven unsupervised comparison.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2018Trial
- The Japan Society of Coloproctology Practice Guidelines for Fecal Incontinence 2024 (Revised Second Edition).Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2026Review
- Analgesic effect of structured anal skin care for perianal dermatitis after low anterior resection in the rectal cancer patients: prospective, single-center, open-label, therapeutic confirmatory, randomized clinical trial.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2022Article
- Diagnostic approach to faecal incontinence: What test and when to perform?World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Physiotherapy for Prevention and Treatment of Fecal Incontinence in Women-Systematic Review of Methods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Recent advances in managing fecal incontinence.F1000Research · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The majority of patients with neuropathic incontinence and other pelvic floor conditions associated with straining at stool have damage to the pudendal nerves distal to the ischial spine. Sacral nerve stimulation appears to be a promising innovation and has been widely adopted and currently considered the standard of care for adults with moderate to severe fecal incontinence and following failed sphincter repair. From a decision-to-treat perspective, the short-term efficacy is good (70%-80%), but the long-term efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation is around 50%. Newer electrophysiological tests and improved anal endosonography would more effectively guide clinical decision making.
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.