Evidence Hub

Prospective, Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Outcome of Conservative 3T Treatment With EMG-Biofeedback

ClinicalTrials.gov · COMPLETED, 2008

158 participants

Abstract

The efficacy of biofeedback and/or low frequency electrical stimulation for the treatment of anal incontinence has not been proven. First, large well-designed clinical trials are missing. Second, only few patients reach therapeutically relevant intensities with low frequency stimulation. In this study, a novel therapeutic concept, termed triple target treatment (3T) was evaluated. 3T combines stimulation with amplitude modulated middle frequency (AM-MF), electromyography (EMG)-triggered stimulation and EMG-biofeedback. 3T was compared with EMG-biofeedback alone after a nine month treatment period.

Methods In this parallel-group randomised multicenter study with blinded observer we enrolled 158 patients with anal incontinence. Primary endpoints were changes from baseline to nine months in the Cleveland Clinic Score (CCS) and the St. Mark's score (Vaizey score).

Conditions: Fecal Incontinence.

Primary outcome: Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCS) in its validated German form after nine months, compared to baseline; Validated new St. Mark's incontinence score (Vaizey score) in its adapted German form after nine months, compared to baseline..

Enrollment: 158 participants.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 158 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free