ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014
Written versus oral disclosure of fecal and urinary incontinence in women with dual incontinence.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Pooled it
- Small-Group, Community-Member Intervention for Urinary and Bowel Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2019Trial
- Article
- Personality of patients with fecal incontinence.International journal of colorectal disease · 2021Observational
- Barriers to seeking care for accidental bowel leakage: a qualitative study.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- The relationship of 3-D translabial ultrasound anal sphincter complex measurements to postpartum anal and fecal incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2015Article
- If We Don't Ask, They Won't Tell: Screening for Urinary and Fecal Incontinence by Primary Care Providers.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo compare fecal incontinence (FI) and urinary incontinence (UI) disclosure in women with dual incontinence (DI), and to assess UI disclosure in DI subjects compared with women with UI alone. We hypothesized that women with DI would be less likely to disclose FI in comparison to UI and as likely to disclose UI as women with UI alone.
methodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of new patient visits to an academic urogynecology clinic from 2007 to 2011. Clinical records were reviewed; demographic data and responses to the Incontinence Severity Index (ISI) and Wexner scales were recorded. Patients' written responses to the ISI and Wexner were compared with the diagnoses obtained from the oral history by the physician.
resultsOf 1,899 women in the database, 557 women were diagnosed with DI and 447 women were diagnosed with UI alone. Women with DI were less likely to orally disclose FI than UI (135 out of 557 [23 %], vs 485 out of 557 [87 %], p < 0.001), but were as likely as women with UI alone to disclose UI (385 out of 447 [86 %] vs 485 out of 557 [87 %], p = 0.66). In the multivariate analysis, DI subjects had greater odds of disclosing FI to their physicians if they had private insurance (OR 1.9, 95 %CI 1.2, 3.0) or Wexner score >7 (OR 9.0, 95 % CI 5.4,14.8) and lower ISI score (OR 1.5, CI 1.4, 1.6).
conclusionsWomen with DI were less likely to report FI in comparison to UI. Patients were more likely to orally report FI when the symptoms were severe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.