Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tapones anales para tratar la incontinencia fecal

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005086.pub4Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 20 July 2015see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Incontinence Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Marije Deutekom

    Correspondence to: Department of Social Medicine k2‐207, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    [email protected]

  • Annette C Dobben

    Academic Medical Center, Department of Radiology, G1‐223, 1100 DE Amsterdam, Netherlands

Contributions of authors

The lead reviewer (MD) undertook additional literature searches and contacted authors and manufacturers for additional information when needed. The two reviewers (MD, AD) independently undertook the quality assessment of the trials and the data extraction. The lead reviewer entered the data. This was checked by the other reviewer (AD). Text until the discussion was drafted by the lead reviewer and checked by the other reviewer. Text starting with the discussion was checked by the lead reviewer and drafted by the other reviewer.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • No sources of support supplied

External sources

  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

    The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is the largest single funder of the Cochrane Incontinence.

    Disclaimer:
    The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all members of the Cochrane Incontinence Group in Aberdeen (especially to June Cody and Sheila Wallace) for their assistance with the review. Thanks are also due to all authors and to suppliers of anal plugs for their cooperation. Finally we would like to thank Christine Norton for her useful comments on the protocol.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2015 Jul 20

Plugs for containing faecal incontinence

Review

Marije Deutekom, Annette C Dobben

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005086.pub4

2012 Apr 18

Plugs for containing faecal incontinence

Review

Marije Deutekom, Annette C Dobben

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005086.pub3

2005 Jul 20

Plugs for containing faecal incontinence

Review

Marije Deutekom, Annette C Dobben

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005086.pub2

2005 Jan 24

Anal plugs for containing faecal incontinence

Protocol

M Deutekom, Annette C Dobben, Marije Deutekom MSc

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005086

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adult; Child; Humans;

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

PRISMA study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

PRISMA study flow diagram.

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 1 General health improved ‐ adults.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 1 General health improved ‐ adults.

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 2 Bodily pain improved ‐ adults.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 2 Bodily pain improved ‐ adults.

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 3 Well being (adults) improved.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 3 Well being (adults) improved.

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 4 Condition‐specific measures of faecal incontinence improved.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 4 Condition‐specific measures of faecal incontinence improved.

Study

Bond 2005

No differences were observed between control and intervention group

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 5 Stool frequency.

Study

Bond 2005

Little or no evidence that the plug led to significant reductions in the overall costs of care

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 6 Costs.

Study

Anal plug period

Control period

Van Winckel 2005

6/12

0/12

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 7 Achievement of pseudo‐continence.

Study

Anal plug period

Control period

Van Winckel 2005

4/16

0/16

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Anal plugs versus no plugs, Outcome 8 Intolerance of intervention.

Study

PU plug

PVA plug

Pfrommer 2000

15/23

14/23

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 One type of anal plug versus another type, Outcome 1 Plug effectiveness: number of people with no soiling.

Study

PU plug

PVA plug

Pfrommer 2000

16/23

10/23

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 One type of anal plug versus another type, Outcome 2 Feeling of security.

Study

PU plug

PVA plug

Pfrommer 2000

7/23

15/23

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 One type of anal plug versus another type, Outcome 3 Loss of plug.

Study

PU plug

PVA plug

Pfrommer 2000

9/23

16/23

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 One type of anal plug versus another type, Outcome 4 Inconvenience.

Study

PU plug

PVA plug

Pfrommer 2000

17/23

8/23

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 One type of anal plug versus another type, Outcome 5 Overall satisfaction.

Comparison 1. Anal plugs versus no plugs

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 General health improved ‐ adults Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Bodily pain improved ‐ adults Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Well being (adults) improved Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.1 Full of life

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 Very nervous

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.3 Down in the dumps

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.4 Calm and peaceful

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.5 Lot of energy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.6 Downhearted and low

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.7 Feel worn out

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.8 Happy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.9 Tired

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Condition‐specific measures of faecal incontinence improved Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Protection

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Rash/skin problems

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.3 Unpleasant odour

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.4 Staining/smearing

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.5 Bowel movement in undergarments (last two weeks)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.6 Frequency of unpleasant odours

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.7 Bowel movements in undergarments (on average day)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.8 Soiled/stained undergarment (on average day)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.9 Prevents staying away from home

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.10 Must avoid long journeys

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.11 Must always have a toilet nearby

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Stool frequency Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

6 Costs Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

7 Achievement of pseudo‐continence Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

8 Intolerance of intervention Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Anal plugs versus no plugs
Comparison 2. One type of anal plug versus another type

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Plug effectiveness: number of people with no soiling Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

2 Feeling of security Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

3 Loss of plug Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

4 Inconvenience Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

5 Overall satisfaction Show forest plot

Other data

No numeric data

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. One type of anal plug versus another type