↓ Skip to main content

Prospective evaluation of transanal irrigation for fecal incontinence and constipation

Overview of attention for article published in Techniques in Coloproctology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prospective evaluation of transanal irrigation for fecal incontinence and constipation
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10151-017-1635-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Juul, P. Christensen

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of transanal irrigation on bowel function and quality of life in a prospective cohort of Danish patients with fecal incontinence or constipation. Patients with fecal incontinence or constipation of heterogeneous origin were treated by a specialist nurse at the Anal Physiology Clinic/Department of Surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. If satisfactory results were not obtained after conservative bowel management, patients were instructed in the use the transanal irrigation procedure and were consecutively recruited for this observational cohort study in the period from March 2010 to September 2013. Patients completed questionnaires regarding bowel function, quality of life and the transanal irrigation procedure at baseline and after 12 months. A total of 507 were introduced to transanal irrigation. Eighty-three percent were females. The median age was 56 (range 19-86) years. At follow-up, 216 (43%) patients still used transanal irrigation, 174 (34%) reported that they had discontinued the treatment for various reasons, while no response was obtained from the remaining 117 (23%) patients. The main reason for not adhering to the treatment was an unsatisfactory outcome, which was reported by 86 (49.4%) of those who discontinued the treatment. Among patients still using the procedure at follow-up, a statistically significant improvement of bowel function scores (St. Marks/Wexner incontinence score, Wexner constipation score and obstructed defecation syndrome score) was detected: the Wexner incontinence score decreased from 12.4 at baseline to 10.2 at follow-up (p < 0.001); the St. Marks incontinence score decreased from 14.9 to 12.7 (p < 0.001); the Wexner constipation score decreased from 14.3 to 12.4 (p < 0.001); and the obstructed defecation syndrome score also dropped, from 15.1 to 11.8 (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the influence of bowel dysfunction on daily activities and quality of life diminished significantly, while the general satisfaction with bowel function increased significantly (p < 0.001 in all three measures). Bowel function and quality of life improved in the group of patients adhering to transanal irrigation after 12 months. However, more than one-third of the patients discontinued the treatment within the first year with transanal irrigation. Thus, further studies are needed in order to identify factors predicting success and failure with this treatment and to improve supervision during initiation and follow-up.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Lecturer 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 28 57%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 29 59%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,179,629
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#239
of 1,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,471
of 314,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#11
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.