Minor tranquillizers for short-term treatment of newly onset symptoms of anxiety and distress: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Unspecific symptoms of anxiety and distress are frequently encountered in patients in both general practice and acute psychiatric services. Minor tranquillizers may be a treatment option when non-pharmacological interventions are insufficient or unavailable. We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis of the evidence for short-term (1-4 weeks) pharmacological treatment of newly onset symptoms of anxiety and distress. We searched the PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcomes. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework (GRADE). We included 34 randomized trials comprising a total of 7044 patients with adjustment disorders or anxiety spectrum disorders. The network meta-analysis showed that regarding the critical outcome symptoms of anxiety within 1-4 weeks benzodiazepines (SMD - 0.58, 95% CI - 0.77 to - 0.40), quetiapine (SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.90 to - 0.13) and pregabalin (SMD - 0.58, 95% CI - 0.87 to - 0.28) all performed better than placebo with no statistically significant difference between the drugs. Data on other important outcomes were inconsistently reported. Adverse effects varied, but overall, it was uncertain whether adverse effects differed between interventions. The evidence regarding the risk of dependence was uncertain, but dependence may be a concern in susceptible individuals even with short-term treatment. Overall, the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE was rated as low to very low across outcomes. Despite the limitations in the evidence, the results of this review can inform treatment guidelines, supporting clinicians in the choice of minor tranquillizer in this prevalent and help-seeking, clinically heterogeneous population.

The short-term and long-term adverse effects of melatonin treatment in children and adolescents: a systematic review and GRADE assessment.

Background: Currently, melatonin is used to treat children and adolescents with insomnia without knowing the full extent of the short-term and long-term consequences. Our aim was to provide clinicians and guideline panels with a systematic assessment of serious-and non-serious adverse events seen in continuation of melatonin treatment and the impact on pubertal development and bone health following long-term administration in children and adolescents with chronic insomnia. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and PsycINFO via Ovid, up to March 17, 2023, for studies on melatonin treatment among children and adolescents (aged 5-20 years) with chronic insomnia. The language was restricted to English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Outcomes were non-serious adverse events and serious adverse events assessed 2-4 weeks after initiating treatment and pubertal development and bone health, with no restriction on definition or time of measurement. Observational studies were included for the assessment of long-term outcomes, and serious and non-serious adverse events were assessed via randomised studies. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The protocol is registered with the Danish Health Authority. Findings: We identified 22 randomised studies with 1350 patients reporting on serious-and non-serious adverse events and four observational studies with a total of 105 patients reporting on pubertal development. Melatonin was not associated with serious adverse events, yet the number of patients experiencing non-serious adverse events was increased (Relative risk 1.56, 95% CI 1.01-2.43, 17 studies, I2 = 47%). Three studies reported little or no influence on pubertal development following 2-4 years of treatment, whereas one study registered a potential delay following longer treatment durations (>7 years). These findings need further evaluation due to several methodological limitations. Interpretation: Children who use melatonin are likely to experience non-serious adverse events, yet the actual extent to which melatonin leads to non-serious adverse events and the long-term consequences remain uncertain. This major gap of knowledge on safety calls for caution against complacent use of melatonin in children and adolescents with chronic insomnia and for more research to inform clinicians and guideline panels on this key issue. Funding: The Danish Health Authority. The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, supported by the Oak Foundation.

Use of melatonin for children and adolescents with chronic insomnia attributable to disorders beyond indication: a systematic review, meta-analysis and clinical recommendation.

Background: Melatonin has become a widely used sleeping aid for young individuals currently not included in existing guidelines. The aim was to develop a recommendation on the use of melatonin in children and adolescents aged 2-20 years, with chronic insomnia due to disorders beyond indication. Methods: We performed a systematic search for guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomised trials (RCTs) in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Guidelines International Network, Trip Database, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, European Sleep Research Society and Scandinavian Health Authorities databases. A separate search for adverse events was also performed. The latest search for guidelines, systematic reviews, and adverse events was performed on March 17, 2023. The latest search for RCTs was performed on to February 6, 2023. The language was restricted to English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Eligible participants were children and adolescents (2-20 years of age) with chronic insomnia due to underlying disorders, in whom sleep hygiene practices have been inadequate and melatonin was tested. Studies exclusively on autism spectrum disorders or attention deficit hyperactive disorder were excluded. There were no restrictions on dosage, duration of treatment, time of consumption or release formula. Primary outcomes were quality of sleep, daytime functioning and serious adverse events, assessed at 2-4 weeks post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included total sleep time, sleep latency, awakenings, drowsiness, quality of life, non-serious adverse events, and all-cause dropouts (assessed at 2-4 weeks post-treatment), plus quality of sleep and daytime functioning (assessed at 3-6 months post-treatment). Pooled estimates were calculated using inverse variance random effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using I2 statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. A multidisciplinary guideline panel constructed the recommendation using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The certainty of evidence was considered either high, moderate, low or very low depending on the extent of risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or publication bias. The evidence-to-decision framework was used to discuss the feasibility and acceptance of the constructed recommendation and its impact on resources and equity. The protocol is registered with the Danish Health Authority. Findings: We identified 13 RCTs, including 403 patients with a wide range of conditions. Melatonin reduced sleep latency by 14.88 min (95% CI 23.42-6.34, 9 studies, I2 = 60%) and increased total sleep time by 18.97 min (95% CI 0.37-37.57, 10 studies, I2 = 57%). The funnel plot for total sleep time showed no apparent indication of publication bias. No other clinical benefits were found. The number of patients experiencing adverse events was not statistically increased however, safety data was scarce. Certainty of evidence was low. Interpretation: Low certainty evidence supports a moderate effect of melatonin in treating sleep continuity parameters in children and adolescents with chronic insomnia due to primarily medical disorders beyond indication. The off-label use of melatonin for these patients should never be the first choice of treatment, but may be considered by medical specialists with knowledge of the underlying disorder and if non-pharmacological interventions are inadequate. If treatment with melatonin is initiated, adequate follow-up to evaluate treatment effect and adverse events is essential. Funding: The Danish Health Authority. The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, supported by the Oak Foundation.

Use of melatonin in children and adolescents with idiopathic chronic insomnia: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical recommendation.

Background: Melatonin prescriptions for children and adolescents have increased substantially during the last decade. Existing clinical recommendations focus on melatonin as a treatment for insomnia related to neurodevelopmental disorders. To help guide clinical decision-making, we aimed to construct a recommendation on the use of melatonin in children and adolescents aged 5-20 years with idiopathic chronic insomnia. Methods: A systematic search for guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCT) were performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Guidelines International Network, Trip Database, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, European Sleep Research Society and Scandinavian Health Authorities databases. A search for adverse events in otherwise healthy children and adolescents was also performed. The latest search for guidelines, systematic reviews, and adverse events was performed on March 18, 2023. The latest search for RCTs was performed on to February 6, 2023. The language was restricted to English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Eligible participants were children and adolescents (5-20 years of age) with idiopathic chronic insomnia, in whom sleep hygiene practices have been inadequate and melatonin was tested. There were no restrictions on dosage, duration of treatment, time of consumption, or release formula. Primary outcomes were quality of sleep, daytime functioning and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included total sleep time, sleep latency, awakenings, drowsiness, quality of life, all-cause dropouts, and non-serious adverse events. Outcomes were assessed at different time points to assess short-term and long-term effects. Meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random-effects model and risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. If possible, funnel plots would be constructed to investigate publication bias. Heterogeneity was calculated via I2 statistics. A multidisciplinary guideline panel formulated the recommendation according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The certainty of evidence was considered either high, moderate, low or very low depending on the extent of risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or publication bias. The evidence-to-decision framework was subsequently used to discuss the feasibility and acceptance of the constructed recommendation alongside the impact on resources and equity. The protocol is registered with the Danish Health Authority. Findings: We included eight RCTs with 419 children and adolescents with idiopathic chronic insomnia. Melatonin led to a moderate increase in total sleep time by 30.33 min (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.96-41.70, 4 studies, I2 = 0%) and a moderate reduction in sleep latency by 18.03 min (95% CI -26.61 to -9.44, 3 studies, I2 = 0%), both as assessed by sleep diary. No other beneficial effects were found. None of the studies provided information on serious adverse events, yet the number of participants experiencing non-serious adverse events was increased (Relative risk 3.44, 95% CI 1.25-9.42, 4 studies, I2 = 0%). Funnel plots were not constructed due to the low number of studies. The certainty of evidence was very low on the quality of sleep and low for daytime functioning. Interpretation: Evidence of very low certainty shows that benefits are limited and unwanted events are likely when melatonin is used to treat otherwise healthy children and adolescents with chronic insomnia. Melatonin should never be the first choice of treatment for this particular population, yet carefully monitored short-term use may be considered if sleep hygiene practices and non-pharmacological interventions have proven inadequate, and only if daytime function is compromised. Funding: The Danish Health Authority and the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital supported by the Oak Foundation.

Fracture risk reduction and safety by osteoporosis treatment compared with placebo or active comparator in postmenopausal women: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To review the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments, including the bone anabolic agents, abaloparatide and romosozumab, on reducing the risk of fractures in postmenopausal women, and to characterise the effect of antiosteoporosis drug treatments on the risk of fractures according to baseline risk factors. DESIGN: Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of randomised clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomised controlled trials published between 1 January 1996 and 24 November 2021 that examined the effect of bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo or active comparator. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials that included non-Asian postmenopausal women with no restriction on age, when interventions looked at bone quality in a broad perspective. The primary outcome was clinical fractures. Secondary outcomes were vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures, all cause mortality, adverse events, and serious cardiovascular adverse events. RESULTS: The results were based on 69 trials (>80 000 patients). For clinical fractures, synthesis of the results showed a protective effect of bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab compared with placebo. Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, bisphosphonates were less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.00). Compared with parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and romosozumab, denosumab was less effective in reducing clinical fractures (odds ratio 1.85, 1.18 to 2.92 for denosumab v parathyroid hormone receptor agonists and 1.56, 1.02 to 2.39 for denosumab v romosozumab). An effect of all treatments on vertebral fractures compared with placebo was found. In the active treatment comparisons, denosumab, parathyroid hormone receptor agonists, and romosozumab were more effective than oral bisphosphonates in preventing vertebral fractures. The effect of all treatments was unaffected by baseline risk indicators, except for antiresorptive treatments that showed a greater reduction of clinical fractures compared with placebo with increasing mean age (number of studies=17; ß=0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 0.99). No harm outcomes were seen. The certainty in the effect estimates was moderate to low for all individual outcomes, mainly because of limitations in reporting, nominally indicating a serious risk of bias and imprecision. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicated a benefit of a range of treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women for clinical and vertebral fractures. Bone anabolic treatments were more effective than bisphosphonates in the prevention of clinical and vertebral fractures, irrespective of baseline risk indicators. Hence this analysis provided no clinical evidence for restricting the use of anabolic treatment to patients with a very high risk of fractures. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019128391.

A systematic review of blood eosinophils and continued treatment with inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD.

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been debated for 20 years. In our systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we addressed the following: Should patients with COPD and a blood eosinophil count (EOS) of, respectively, a) < 150 cells/µl, b) 150-300 cells/µl, and c) > 300 cells/µl continue treatment with ICS? Protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020178110) and funded by the Danish Health Authority. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Central on 22nd July 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) of ICS treatment in patients with COPD (≥40 years, no current asthma), which analyzed outcomes by EOS count and where >50% of patients used ICS prior. We used the GRADE method. Meta-analyzes for the outcomes were divided into EOS subgroups and analyzed for differences. We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 29,654 patients. A significant difference (p < 0.00001) between the three subgroups' reduction of risk of moderate to severe exacerbation was found. Rate ratios for EOS counts: <150 cells/µL was 0.88 (95%CI: 0.83, 0.94); 150-300 cells/µL was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.69, 0.94); >300 cells/µL was 0.57 (95%CI: 0.49, 0.66). Overall, the certainty of the effect estimates was low to very low due to risk of bias, unexplained heterogeneity, few RCTs, and wide confidence intervals. A clear correlation was demonstrated between effect of continued ICS treatment (number of exacerbations, lung function, and quality of life) and increasing EOS count. Our meta-analyses suggested that treatment with ICS seemed beneficial for everyone except patients with EOS count below 150 cells/µl.

Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development-A Survey of 585 Recommendations.

The Danish Health Authority develops clinical practice guidelines to support clinical decision-making based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and prioritizes using Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to explore the usefulness of Cochrane reviews as a source of evidence in the development of clinical recommendations. Evidence-based recommendations in guidelines published by the Danish Health Authority between 2014 and 2021 were reviewed. For each recommendation, it was noted if and how Cochrane reviews were utilized. In total, 374 evidence-based recommendations and 211 expert consensus recommendations were published between 2014 and 2021. Of the 374 evidence-based recommendations, 106 included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 28 recommendations, all critical and important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In 36 recommendations, a minimum of all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews, but not all important outcomes. In 33 recommendations, some but not all critical outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. Finally, in nine recommendations, some of the important outcomes included evidence from Cochrane reviews. In almost one-third of the evidence-based recommendations, Cochrane reviews were used to inform clinical recommendations. This evaluation should inform future evaluations of Cochrane review uptake in clinical practice guidelines concerning outcomes important for clinical decision-making.

Supervised exercise therapy compared with no exercise therapy to reverse debilitating effects of androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer can have several debilitating side effects. Supervised exercise is recommended to ameliorate these negative effects. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the effect of supervised exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy in patients with prostate cancer undergoing ADT, primarily according to the patient critical outcomes, 'disease-specific quality of life' and 'walking performance' measured at end of treatment. METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cinahl and Pedro, to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which investigated the effect of supervised exercise therapy compared to no exercise therapy in patients with prostate cancer receiving ADT, last search: June 2021. Two independent reviewers extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE-method. RESULTS: Eigthteen RCTs (n = 1477) comprised patients with prostate cancer stages T1-T4 were included in the meta-analyses. Compared to no exercise therapy, supervised exercise therapy showed clinically relevant improvements in 'disease-specific quality of life' and 'walking performance'. The standardised mean differences were 0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29, 0.58) and -0.41 (95% CI: -0.60, -0.22), respectively. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate due to serious risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of moderate quality shows that supervised exercise therapy probably is superior to no exercise therapy in improving 'disease-specific quality of life' and 'walking performance' in patients with prostate cancer undergoing ADT. The results apply to all patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy regardless of cancer stage. The results support a strong recommendation for supervised exercise therapy for managing side effects in this population. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: NKR-38-Focused-questions-PICOs-for-updating1.ashx (sst.dk).

Supervised Training Compared With No Training or Self-training in Patients With Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of supervised training in adults with subacromial pain syndrome. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched from inception to March 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials comparing supervised training with (1) no training or (2) self-training in adults with subacromial pain syndrome lasting for at least 1 month. Critical outcomes were shoulder pain, function, and patient-perceived effect. Important outcomes included other potential benefits and adverse events at 3-month follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data for the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 1, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies (n=597, 43% female) were included. Supervised training resulted in larger improvements than no training on pain (at rest: n=286; mean difference [MD], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-3.06 on 0-10 scale; during movement: n=353; MD, 1.84; 95% CI,0.91-2.76), function (n=396; standardized MD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.07-0.52), and patient-perceived effect (n=118; risk ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.87-2.34). Supervised training had potential benefits regarding quality of life, return to work, dropout, and training adherence, albeit more patients reported mild, transient pain after training. Supervised training and self-training showed equal improvements on pain (n=44) and function (n=76), with no data describing patient-perceived effect. Certainty of evidence was low for critical outcomes and low-moderate for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised training might be superior to no training and equally effective as self-training on critical and important outcomes. Based on low-moderate certainty of evidence, these findings support a weak recommendation for supervised training in adults with subacromial pain syndrome.

TVT or TVT-O? - A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing efficacy, complications and re-operations.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, complications and re-operations after bottom-up tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and inside-out tension-free vaginal tape - obturator (TVT-O) in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in adult women. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic literature search and review was performed limited to randomized controlled trials. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, Guideline International network (GIN), Trip Database and NICE (UK). The certainty in the estimates of the included outcomes was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We included 22 randomized controlled trials. The overall certainty in the evidence was moderate across all outcomes. TVT and TVT-O significantly improved the incontinence regarding number of incontinence episodes, subjective patient reported effect and incontinence related quality of life, and there was no difference between TVT and TVT-O. Leg or groin pain was significantly less common 6 months after TVT than TVT-O with RR 0.27 (CI 95 % 0.11 - 0.66), 9 studies, n = 1312. In absolute numbers 83 patients more developed chronic leg or groin pain per 1000 operations with TVT-O compared to TVT. We found no statistically significant differences between chronic pelvic or lower abdominal pain 6 months after TVT and TVT-O. Bladder perforations were significantly more common after TVT with RR 4.53 (CI 95 % 2.32-8.86), 21 studies, n = 3308. In absolute numbers this meant 5 more bladder perforations after TVT per 1000 operations. No statistically significant differences were noted in de novo urgency, re-operations, infection, hematoma, pain during sexual intercourse or sexual function. Bottom-up TVT and inside-out TVT-O showed equal efficacy, but leg and groin pain were much more common with TVT-O. The authors would recommend TVT instead of TVT-O as first line operation in patients who need surgery for SUI.

Efficacy of Supervised Pelvic Floor Muscle Training and Biofeedback vs Attention-Control Treatment in Adults With Fecal Incontinence.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in combination with conservative treatment is recommended as first-line treatment for patients with fecal incontinence, although its efficacy is unclear. We investigated whether supervised PFMT in combination with conservative treatment is superior to attention-control massage treatment and conservative treatment in adults with fecal incontinence. METHODS: We performed a randomized, controlled, superiority trial of patients with fecal incontinence at a tertiary care center at a public hospital in Denmark. Ninety-eight adults with fecal incontinence were randomly assigned to groups that received supervised PFMT and biofeedback plus conservative treatment or attention-control treatment plus conservative treatment. The primary outcome was rating of symptom changes, after 16 weeks, based on scores from the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale. Secondary outcomes were changes in the Vaizey incontinence score (Vaizey Score), Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, participants in the PFMT group were significantly more likely to report improvement in incontinence symptoms based on Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale scores (unadjusted odds ratio, 5.16; 95% CI, 2.18-12.19; P = .0002). The PFMT group had a larger reduction in the mean Vaizey Score (reduction, -1.83 points; 95% CI, -3.57 to -0.08; P = .04). There were no significant differences in condition-specific quality of life. In the per-protocol analyses, the superiority of PFMT was increased. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial of adults with fecal incontinence provides support for a superior effect of supervised PFMT in combination with conservative treatment compared with attention-control massage treatment and conservative treatment. We found that participants who received supervised PFMT had 5-fold higher odds of reporting improvements in fecal incontinence symptoms and had a larger mean reduction of incontinence severity based on the Vaizey Score compared with attention control massage treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT01705535.

Supervised pelvic floor muscle training versus attention-control massage treatment in patients with faecal incontinence: Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Faecal incontinence affects approximately 8-9% of the adult population. The condition is surrounded by taboo; it can have a devastating impact on quality of life and lead to major limitations in daily life. Pelvic floor muscle training in combination with information and fibre supplements is recommended as first-line treatment for faecal incontinence. Despite this, the effect of pelvic floor muscle training for faecal incontinence is unclear. No previous trials have investigated the efficacy of supervised pelvic floor muscle training in combination with conservative treatment and compared this to an attention-control massage treatment including conservative treatment. The aim of this trial is to investigate if 16 weeks of supervised pelvic floor muscle training in combination with conservative treatment is superior to attention-control massage treatment and conservative treatment in patients with faecal incontinence. DESIGN: Randomised, controlled, superiority trial with two parallel arms. METHODS: 100 participants with faecal incontinence will be randomised to either (1) individually supervised pelvic floor muscle training and conservative treatment or (2) attention-control massage treatment and conservative treatment. The primary outcome is participants' rating of symptom changes after 16 weeks of treatment using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement Scale. Secondary outcomes are the Vaizey Incontinence Score, the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale, a 14-day bowel diary, anorectal manometry and rectal capacity measurements. Follow-up assessment at 36 months will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This paper describes and discusses the rationale, the methods and in particular the statistical analysis plan of this trial.