EMG biofeedback vs STARR procedure: Treatment success rate
EMG biofeedback may leads to lower treatment success at one year1 compared with STARR procedure (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
EMG biofeedback vs STARR procedure Treatment success at one year1 · Patients with obstructed defecation EMG biofeedback may leads to lower treatment success at one year1 compared with STARR procedure (low certainty). Biofeedback for treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation in adults (2014) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.41 [0.26, 0.65] | 1 study · 93 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biofeedback for treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation in adults 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.