Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32449277›Full record

Trial reportNeurogastroenterology and motility2020

Effects of the vibrating capsule on colonic circadian rhythm and bowel symptoms in chronic idiopathic constipation.

Satish S C Rao, Anthony Lembo, William D Chey, Keith Friedenberg, Eamonn M M Quigley

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07213986 (Pilot Trial of the Vibrant Capsule for Spinal Cord Injury Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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.

NCT07213986 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Pilot Trial of the Vibrant Capsule for Spinal Cord Injury Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Texas Health Science Center, HoustonRan2026 to 2026Enrolled12ConditionsNeurogenic Bowel Dysfunction, Spinal Cord InjuryArmsVibrant Capsule
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Satish S C RaoAugusta University Medical Center, Augusta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4446-8452
Anthony LemboHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4479-1188
William D CheyUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Keith FriedenbergGreat Lakes Gastroenterology Research, Mentor, OH, USA.
Eamonn M M QuigleyLynda K and David M Underwood Center for Digestive Disorders, Houston Methodist Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, Houston, TX, USA.
Augusta University Health · USCornell University · USGreat Lakes NeuroTechnologies (United States) · USHarvard University · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConstipated patients remain dissatisfied with current treatments suggesting a need for alternative therapies.

aimEvaluate the mechanistic effects of oral vibrating capsule in chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) by examining the temporal relationships between the onset of vibrations, complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM), and circadian rhythm.

methodsIn post hoc analyses of two double-blind studies, CIC patients (Rome III) were randomized to receive 5 active or sham capsules/week for 8 weeks. The capsules were programmed for single vibration (study 1) or two vibration sessions with two modes, 8 hours apart (study 2). Daily electronic diaries assessed stool habit and percentage of CSBMs associated with vibrations. Responders were patients with ≥ 1 CSBM per week over baseline.

results250 patients were enrolled (active = 133, sham = 117). During and within 3 hours of vibration, there were significantly more % CSBMs in the active vs. sham group (50% vs. 42%; P = .0018). In study 2, there were two CSBM peaks associated with vibration sessions. Significantly more % CSBMs occurred in active mode 1 (21.5%) vs. sham (11.5%); (P = .0357). Responder rates did not differ in study 1 (active vs. sham: 26.9% vs. 35.9%, P = .19) or study 2 (mode 1 vs. sham: 50% vs. 31.8%, P = .24; mode 2 vs. sham: 38.1% vs. 31.8%, P = .75). Device was well-tolerated barring mild vibration sensation.

conclusionsVibrating capsule may increase CSBMs possibly by enhancing the physiologic effects of waking and meals, and augmenting circadian rhythm, although responder rate was not different from sham. Two vibration sessions were associated with more CSBMs.

Indexed as

Circadian RhythmAdultCapsulesChronic DiseaseConstipationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeVibrationCapsulescircadian rhythmconstipationmotilityVibrating capsule

Identifiers

PMID32449277
PMCPMC7685128
OpenAlexW3026507497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.