Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39450616›Full record

ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2025

Biofeedback efficacy for outlet dysfunction constipation: Clinical outcomes and predictors of response by a limited approach.

Christian Lambiase, Massimo Bellini, William E Whitehead, Stefan Lucian Popa, Riccardo Morganti, Giuseppe Chiarioni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors.

Christian LambiaseGastrointestinal Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9565-5039
Massimo BelliniGastrointestinal Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
William E WhiteheadUNC Center for Functional GI and Motility Disorders, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6587-7602
Stefan Lucian Popa2nd Medical Department, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Riccardo MorgantiClinical Trial Statistical Support Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Giuseppe ChiarioniUNC Center for Functional GI and Motility Disorders, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFunctional defecation disorders (FDD) are a common etiology of refractory chronic constipation (CC). FDD diagnosis (dyssynergic defecation [DD] and inadequate defecatory propulsion [IDP]), requires diagnostic tests including anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion test (BET). Biofeedback (BF) is the treatment of choice for DD. The aims of our study were to evaluate: the outcome of BF in a group of constipated patients with defecatory disorders of any etiology; the efficacy of two simple diagnostic tools in predicting BF outcome in the short-term.

methodsOne hundred and thirty-one refractory CC patients failing the BET underwent BF therapy. Before BF, all patients underwent the following: ARM. Straining questionnaire. The answers were: "belly muscles"; "anal muscles"; "both"; "Don't know/No answer." Digital rectal examination augmented by abdominal palpation on straining (augmented-DRE). The BF therapist was blinded to ARM, straining questionnaire, and augmented-DRE results. KEY

resultsEighty-one patients responded to BF. Gender, age, and IBS-C showed no significant impact on BF response. Both DD and IDP responded equally to BF, while the rate of response in patients with isolated structural pelvic floor abnormalities was lower (p < 0.001). The answer "anal muscles" to straining questionnaire showed a strong association with BF response (p < 0.001). A lack in abdominal contraction and in anal relaxation on augmented-DRE were strongly associated with BF response (p < 0.01). Absence of manual maneuvers to facilitate defecation was associated with BF response (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: BF is the therapy of choice for refractory constipation due to FDD of any etiology, inducing both clinical and anorectal physiology improvement in the short term. Comorbid IBS-C did not affect outcome while symptomatic isolated pelvic floor abnormalities appeared refractory to behavior treatment. The straining questionnaire and augmented-DRE outcomes showed a strong correlation with BF response and can be implemented in clinical practice to improve the management of constipated patients by prompting early referral to BF.

Indexed as

Biofeedback, PsychologyConstipationManometryAdultAgedDefecationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcomebiofeedbackconstipationdigital rectal examinationdyssynergic defecationfunctional defecation disordersirritable bowel syndromerectocele

Identifiers

PMID39450616
PMCPMC11650404

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.