ArticleTurkish journal of urology2019
Practice patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of fecal incontinence with sacral neuromodulation: Can urologists impact this gap in care?
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-Market Study Evaluating Performance of the Rechargeable InterStim™ Micro System in Fecal Incontinence Patients.International urogynecology journal · 2025Trial
- Prior Authorization for Sacral Nerve Stimulation in the Era of WISeR: Evaluation of U.S. Payer Coverage Policies.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe prevalence of fecal incontinence (FI) is 8% in the United States. Many patients will not seek treatment and the condition is underdiagnosed. Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is effective in treating FI, and so urologists can play a key role in its treatment. We examine the practice patterns and treatment of FI with SNM in our institution. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe electronic medical record was queried for the proportion of patients seen for FI in the institution, the urology department, and among the female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) urologists. The patients who underwent SNM for FI were evaluated for progression to second stage procedure.
resultsThe proportion of patients seen for FI is 0.96% in the institution as a whole, 7.9% in the urology department, and 17.9% among FPMRS urologists. Fourteen patients underwent first stage SNM for FI or dual urinary/fecal incontinence, and they all progressed to a second stage procedure. Thirteen of these were performed by FPMRS urologists.
conclusionIn our institution, the proportion of patients seen for FI was lower than the prevalence of this condition. Because patients with urinary incontinence are more likely to have FI, urologists are in a unique position to identify these patients and offer treatment that can improve their quality of life. We acknowledge a gap in care of the patients with FI and an opportunity for urologists to help patients with this devastating yet treatable condition.
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.