ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2020
Comparison of antegrade continence enema treatment and sacral nerve stimulation for children with severe functional constipation and fecal incontinence.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy of retrograde and antegrade enemas in the management of low anterior resection syndrome in patients undergoing rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Treatments for intractable constipation in childhood.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of Hirschsprung disease testing strategies for children with medically-refractory chronic constipation: A cost-effectiveness analysis.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2026Article
- Antegrade Continence Enema vs. Botulinum Toxin in Pediatric Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: A 10-Year Retrospective Study at a Single Center.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Current Treatment Options for Children with Functional Constipation-What Is in the Pipeline?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Sacral nerve stimulation effect on colonic motility in pediatric patients.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2024Article
- Exploring Diagnostic Priorities: The Role of Colonic Manometry in Evaluating Pediatric Patients with Intractable Idiopathic Constipation Prior to Sacral Nerve Stimulation.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Faecal incontinence-a comprehensive review.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
- Diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence in children and adolescents.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- Article
- Comparison of antegrade continence enema treatment and sacral nerve stimulation for children with severe functional constipation and fecal incontinence.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2020Article
- Pediatric gastrointestinal neuromodulation: A review.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationReview
- [Advances in the Treatment of Refractory Pediatric Constipation].Acta gastroenterologica LatinoamericanaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare antegrade continence enema (ACE) treatment and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in children with intractable functional constipation (FC) and fecal incontinence (FI).
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of children 6-18 years old with FC and FI treated with either ACE or SNS at our institution. We recorded symptoms at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and their most recent visit after starting treatment. We compared improvement in FI, bowel movement (BM) frequency, abdominal pain, laxative use, and complications. Patients were contacted to evaluate perceived benefit using the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory. KEY
resultsWe included 23 patients treated with ACE (52% female, median age 10 years) and 19 patients treated with SNS (74% female, median age 10 years). Improvement in FI was greater with SNS than ACE at 12 months (92.9% vs 57.1%, P = .03) and 24 months (100% vs 57.1%, P = .02). Improvement in BM frequency was greater with ACE, and children were more likely to discontinue laxatives at all follow-up time points (all P < .05). Improvement in abdominal pain was greater with ACE at the most recent visit (P < .05). Rate of complications requiring surgery was similar between groups (26.3% vs 21.7%). Benefit was reported in 83.3% and 100% of ACE and SNS groups, respectively (NS). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Although both ACE and SNS can lead to durable improvement in children with FC and FI, SNS appears more effective for FI and ACE more effective in improving BM frequency and abdominal pain and in discontinuation of laxatives.
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.