1.5. Analysis.

Comparison 1 DRUG VERSUS PLACEBO, Outcome 5 Faecal incontinence score.

Faecal incontinence score
Study	Drug	Placebo	Significance
Loperamide versus placebo
Sun 1997 #	visual analogue incontinence scale: N 11 mean 26 (SD 36) loperamide oxide	N 11 mean 43 (SD 37)	P = 0.12
Phenylephrine gel versus placebo
Carapeti 2000a #	N 18 mean 12.5 (SD 3.4)	N 18 mean 12.6 (SD 4.2)	No significant difference
Carapeti 2000b #	N 12 mean 12.2 (SD 5.7)	N 12 mean 16.5 (SD 4.4)
Park 2007	Anal incontinence evaluated with Faecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) and reported as mean (SD) n = 17; Baseline: 32.5 (14.5); After: 32.3 (14.7) P = 0.940	Anal incontinence evaluated with Faecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) and reported as mean (SD) n = 12; Baseline: 32.1 (11.2); After: 32.4 (14.4) P = 0.626
Zinc aluminium ointment versus placebo ointment
Pinedo 2012	Wexner Faecal Incontinence Score reported before and after the treatment and reported as mean (SD) n = 24; Before: 16.6 (6‐20); After: 8.5 (0‐11) P = < 0.001	Wexner Faecal Incontinence Score reported before and after the treatmentand reported as mean (SD) n = 20; Before: 16.7 (5‐18); After: 13.1 (5‐17) P = 0.02	There was a significant difference in the final scores favouring the treatment group (P = 0.001)