Trial reportSpinal cord2022
Are micro enemas administered with a squeeze tube and a 5 cm-long nozzle as good or better than micro enemas administered with a 10 cm-long catheter attached to a syringe in people with a recent spinal cord injury? A non-inferiority, crossover randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Spinal cord, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomised controlled trials of nursing interventions in spinal cord injury: a scoping review.Spinal cord series and cases · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designDouble blind, non-inferiority crossover randomised controlled trial.
objectivesTo determine if micro enemas administered with a squeeze-tube and a 5 cm-long nozzle (squeeze-tube method) are as good or better than micro enemas administered with a 10 cm-long catheter attached to a syringe (catheter method) in people with a recent spinal cord injury.
settingTwo inpatient spinal cord injury units located in Sydney, Australia.
methodsTwenty people admitted to hospital with recent spinal cord injury were randomly assigned to two treatment sequences; 4 weeks of micro enemas delivered by the squeeze-tube method followed by 4 weeks of micro enemas delivered by the catheter method, or vice versa. Each treatment sequence was 8 weeks with a crossover at the end of week 4. The primary outcome was time to complete bowel care. Secondary outcomes reflected faecal incontinence, quality of life, perception of treatment effectiveness and participant reported time to complete bowel care. The primary and secondary outcomes were measured by blinded assessors in week 4 and week 8. A non-inferiority margin of 10 min for time to complete bowel care was set a priori.
resultsThe mean between group difference (95% confidence interval) for the time to complete bowel care was -0.5 min (-2.8 to 1.8), where a negative value favours the catheter method. Results were similar for all secondary outcomes.
conclusionsMicro enemas delivered by the squeeze-tube method are as good or better than micro enemas delivered by the catheter method in people with a recent spinal cord injury.
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.