ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2018
Conservative treatment of severe defecatory urgency and fecal incontinence: minor strategies with major impact.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Faecal incontinence in adults.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022Review
- Bowel dysfunction in survivors of gynaecologic malignancies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Effects of Dietary Guidance without Dietary Fiber Supplements on the Symptoms, Quality of Life, and Dietary Intake in Patients with Fecal Incontinence.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2020Article
- Acupuncture for fecal incontinence: Protocol for a systematic review and data mining.Medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBowel disturbances have been identified as the most important risk factor for fecal incontinence (FI). However, few studies have evaluated the impact of fiber supplementation. Our aim was to assess the correlation between the improvement in stool consistency by fiber supplementation and the changes in urgency and number of FI episodes and in the QoL of patients with FI.
methodsEighty-three patients who came to our institution with FI and/or fecal urgency associated with loose stools or diarrhea were prospectively included in the study The intervention included dietary advice and methylcellulose 500 mg every 8 h for 6 weeks. All assessments were carried out at baseline and 6 weeks after the start of the intervention, and included a Bristol Stool Scale, a 3-week bowel diary, the St Mark's score, the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale (FIQL) and a bowel satisfaction score.
resultsSixty-one patients completed the study. At baseline 50 reported episodes of urge incontinence, while 11 did not report FI episodes because they rarely left home to avoid leakage. The Bristol score improved to normal stools in 65.6% of patients after treatment. Bowel diaries showed a statistically significant reduction in the number of bowel movements, urge episodes, urge fecal incontinence episodes and soiling per week. The St Mark's score and the bowel satisfaction score significantly improved after methylcellulose and overall deferment time also increased. FIQL significantly improved in two subdomains (lifestyle, coping/behavior). Thirty-one patients (51.7%) were discharged with methylcellulose as the only treatment.
conclusionsFI may significantly improve with methylcellulose in selected cases. Assessment of fecal consistency and initial treatment with methylcellulose could be started at primary care level to reduce the need for specialist referral.
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.