Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35588336›Full record

Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2022

Stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in adults with chronic constipation.

U Grossi, J Lacy-Colson, S R Brown, S Cross, S Eldridge, M Jordan, J Mason, C Norton, S M Scott, N Stevens and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Sample Size Calculation for an Individual Stepped-Wedge Randomized Trial.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

U GrossiCentre for Neuroscience, Surgery and Trauma, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. ugo.grossi@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5372-2873
J Lacy-ColsonRoyal Shrewsbury Hospital, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, Shrewsbury, UK.
S R BrownSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield, UK.
S CrossPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
S EldridgePragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
M JordanWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
J MasonWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
C NortonFaculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
S M ScottCentre for Neuroscience, Surgery and Trauma, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
N StevensCentre for Neuroscience, Surgery and Trauma, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
S TaheriCentre for Neuroscience, Surgery and Trauma, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
C H KnowlesCentre for Neuroscience, Surgery and Trauma, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBKing's College London · GBRoyal Shrewsbury Hospital · GBSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) in patients with defecatory disorders secondary to internal rectal prolapse is poorly evidenced. A UK-based multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed to determine the clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls at medium-term follow-up.

methodsThe randomized controlled trial was conducted from March 1, 2015 TO January 31, 2019. A stepped-wedge RCT design permitted observer-masked data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR (controls) with those who had undergone surgery. Adult participants with radiologically confirmed IRP refractory to conservative treatment were randomized to three arms with different delays before surgery. Efficacy outcome data were collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 weeks). Clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls was defined as ≥ 1.0-point reduction in Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life and/or Symptoms (PAC-QOL and/or PAC-SYM) scores at 24 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included 14-day diary data, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), St Marks incontinence score, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), the chronic constipation Behavioral Response to Illness Questionnaire (CC-BRQ), and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ).

resultsOf a calculated sample size of 114, only 28 patients (100% female) were randomized from 6 institutions (due mainly to national pause on mesh-related surgery). Nine were assigned to the T0 arm, 10 to T12, and 9 to T24. There were no substantial differences in baseline characteristics between the three arms. Compared to baseline, significant reduction (improvement) in PAC-QOL and PAC-SYM scores were observed at 24 weeks post-surgery (- 1.09 [95% CI - 1.76, - 0.41], p = 0.0019, and - 0.92 [- 1.52, - 0.32], p = 0.0029, respectively) in the 19 patients available for analysis (9 were excluded for dropout [n = 2] or missing primary outcome [n = 7]). There was a clinically significant long-term reduction in PAC-QOL scores (- 1.38 [- 2.94, 0.19], p = 0.0840 at 72 weeks). Statistically significant improvements in PAC-SYM scores persisted to 72 weeks (- 1.51 [- 2.87, - 0.16], p = 0.0289). Compared to baseline, no differences were found in secondary outcomes, except for significant improvements at 24 and 48 weeks on CC-BRQ avoidance behavior (- 14.3 [95% CI - 23.3, - 5.4], and - 0.92 [- 1.52, - 0.32], respectively), CC-BRQ safety behavior (- 13.7 [95% CI - 20.5, - 7.0], and - 13.0 [- 19.8, - 6.1], respectively), and BIPQ negative perceptions (- 16.3 [95% CI - 23.5, - 9.0], and - 10.5 [- 17.9, - 3.2], respectively).

conclusionsWith the caveat of under-powering due to poor recruitment, the study presents the first randomized trial evidence of short-term benefit of LVMR for internal rectal prolapse.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN11747152).

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal ProlapseAdultChronic DiseaseConstipationFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeConstipationRandomized controlled trialRectal prolapseRectopexyStepped wedge

Identifiers

PMID35588336
PMCPMC9117980
OpenAlexW4280515680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.