ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2026
Biofeedback Therapy and Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in the Treatment of Constipation and Fecal Incontinence Are Very Different in Real-World Practice.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInternational guidelines recommend anorectal biofeedback therapy or pelvic floor physical therapy for the treatment of constipation and fecal incontinence (FI). However, the similarities and differences between these therapies are unclear.
objectiveThis practitioner survey aimed to evaluate the practice patterns of biofeedback therapists (BTs) and pelvic floor physical therapists (PTs). SETTINGS: This survey was targeted at BTs and PTs in community and hospital settings.
methodsWe conducted an international online survey about training, equipment, techniques, and practice patterns of BTs and PTs in treating patients with constipation and FI, distributed through specialist societies and known contacts. Language style was adjusted to the participants' preferences.
resultsWe received 289 responses from 226 (78.2%) PTs and 63 (21.8%) BTs from Australia/New Zealand (119; 41.2%), the USA (90; 31.1%), and the rest of the world (80; 27.7%). The use of biofeedback in treating anorectal disorders often or always differed; BTs 80.4% versus PTs 51.8% (OR 4.50 (2.48-8.17)). Equipment for delivering biofeedback differed: electromyography (BTs 32.1% versus PTs 77.1%; OR 0.14 (0.07-0.27)), manometry (BTs 71.4% versus PTs 4.8%; OR 45.94 (18.35-115.02)), and ultrasound (BTs 0% versus PTs 50.3%). Ancillary device use differed (e.g., footstool (BTs 68.8% versus PTs 88.7%; OR 0.32 (0.18-0.55)), release device (BTs 6.5% versus PTs 27.9%; OR 0.06 (0.03-0.13)), trigger point (BTs 4.9% versus PTs 28.9%; OR 0.04 (0.02-0.11))). Techniques used differed: abdominal massage (BTs 31.1% versus PTs 59.6%; OR 0.27 (0.15-0.46)), balloon expulsion BTs 65.6% versus PTs 9.4% (OR 14.82 (7.95-27.65)). LIMITATIONS: The uneven distribution of respondents between countries and groups and reliance on self-reporting limits the generalizability of this exploratory study.
conclusionsBTs and PTs reported vast differences in the delivery of care for anorectal disorders. PTs use biofeedback less often and, when delivering biofeedback, use less manometry and more electromyography and ultrasound. Recognition of these differences may better inform referring providers and facilitate a more collaborative, standardized approach in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.