Efficacy of Biofeedback Therapy in Clinical Practice for the Management of Chronic Constipation and Fecal Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic constipation (CC) and fecal incontinence (FI) are often secondary to pelvic floor neuromuscular sensory or motor dysfunction. Biofeedback therapy (BFT) uses visual and verbal feedback to improve anorectal coordination, strength and sensation. In clinical trials, BFT demonstrated response rates between 70% and 80%. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of BFT in clinical practice. METHODS: In this retrospective observational cohort study, the charts of all patients who completed BFT at our centre were reviewed. A positive response to BFT was defined as improvement in ARM profile from baseline or subjective symptom improvement or both. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients with an average age of 57.5 ± 16.4 years and 79.2% female were included. Of all patients, 43.1% were referred for CC, 37.7% for FI, 16.9% for alternating CC and FI, and 2.3% for rectal pain. The overall response rate to BFT was 76.2% (n=99). Of those that responded, 64.6% (n=64) demonstrated both ARM and symptom improvement, 27.3% (n=27) had ARM improvement but no symptom improvement, and 8.1% (n=8) had symptom improvement but no ARM improvement. In patients with FI, the overall response rate was 79.6% (n=39) with symptom improvement in 67.3% (n=33). In those with CC with dyssynergic defecation (n=53), the overall response rate was 69.8% (n=37); however, only 45.3% (n=24) had symptomatic improvement. CONCLUSION: In our clinical practice, although overall response rates to BFT are similar to published reports, patients with CC with dyssynergic defecation are less likely to have symptomatic response compared with those with FI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".