Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29582182›Full record

ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2018

Diagnosis and Management of Fecal Incontinence.

Arnold Wald

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Control of Motility in the Internal Anal Sphincter.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2019
    Article
  9. Pelvic floor rehabilitation for defecation disorders.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019
    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

1 author.

Arnold WaldDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Centennial Building, 4th floor, 1685 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53705, USA. axw@medicine.wisc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe purpose of this review is to highlight current and newer therapeutic approaches to treat fecal incontinence in patients who do not respond to conservative measures. RECENT

findingsNeurostimulation techniques, injection of bulking agents, and radiofrequency energy delivery to the anal canal have been proposed and tested for fecal incontinence over the last decade. Sacral stimulation is both effective and durable and is now the most popular of the invasive techniques whereas percutaneous tibial stimulation, radiofrequency energy, and bulking agents are either less effective or their evaluation has been handicapped by suboptimal study designs. The precise indications for the new vaginal control device and anal plugs remain to be established. The magnetic anal sphincter is disappointing. Stem cell therapy is a potentially exciting approach, which is in its infancy. There continues to be an unmet need for innovative approaches to patients with fecal incontinence who do not respond to conservative measures. The efficacy of current and future therapies should be assessed using criteria more stringent than has been used in the past to provide a more realistic assessment of meaningful efficacy.

Indexed as

Biofeedback, PsychologyElectric Stimulation TherapyEndpoint DeterminationFecal IncontinenceHumansLaxativesManometryProstheses and ImplantsStem Cell TransplantationTibial NerveLaxativesAnal plugsAnorectumFecal incontinenceHigh-resolution anorectal manometryPerianal bulking agentsRadiofrequency energy deliverySacral neuromodulation

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.