ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2015
Validation of a new scoring system: Rapid assessment faecal incontinence score.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of Life in Women with Defecatory Dysfunctions: Systematic Review of Questionnaires Validated in the Portuguese Language.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2019Pooled it
- Observational
- Efficacy of botulinum toxin type A administration within the current therapeutic algorithm for chronic anal fissure: study protocol for the prospective multicentre observational study FISURBOT-GECO6.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Transabdominal and Transperineal Approaches for Full-Thickness Rectal Prolapse Repair: A Fourteen-Year Retrospective Study.Gastroenterology research · 2025Article
- Long-term efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and a new approach for partial responders.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Short and long term results of anatomical reconstruction of perineal body and sphincter complex in obstetric anal sphincter injuries.Turkish journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- Survival and functional and oncological outcomes following intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: short-term results.The Journal of international medical research · 2018Article
- Hypothesized summative anal physiology score correlates but poorly predicts incontinence severity.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Endpoints for therapeutic interventions in faecal incontinence: small step or game changer.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo implement a quick and simple test - rapid assessment faecal incontinence score (RAFIS) and show its reliability and validity.
methodsFrom March 2008 through March 2010, we evaluated a total of 261 consecutive patients, including 53 patients with faecal incontinence. Demographic and comorbidity information was collected. In a single visit, patients were administered the RAFIS. The results obtained with the new score were compared with those of both Wexner score and faecal incontinence quality of life scale (FIQL) questionnaire. The patient without influence of the surgeon completed the test. The role of surgeon was explaining the meaning of each section and how he had to fill. Reliability of the RAFIS score was measured using intra-observer agreement and Cronbach's alpha (internal consistency) coefficient. Multivariate analysis of the main components within the different scores was performed in order to determine whether all the scores measured the same factor and to conclude whether the information could be encompassed in a single factor. A sample size of 50 patients with faecal incontinence was estimated to be enough to detect a correlation of 0.55 or better at 5% level of significance with 80% power.
resultsWe analysed the results obtained by 53 consecutive patients with faecal incontinence (median age 61.55 ± 12.49 years) in the three scoring systems. A total of 208 healthy volunteers (median age 58.41 ± 18.41 years) without faecal incontinence were included in the study as negative controls. Pearson's correlation coefficient between "state" and "leaks" was excellent (r = 0.92, P < 0.005). Internal consistency in the comparison of "state" and "leaks" yielded also excellent correlation (Cronbach's α = 0.93). Results in each score were compared using regression analysis and a correlation value of r = 0.98 was obtained with Wexner score. As regards FIQL questionnaire, the values of "r" for the different subscales of the questionnaire were: "lifestyle" r = -0.87, "coping/behaviour" r = -0.91, "depression" r = -0.36 and "embarrassment" r = -0.90, (P < 0.01). A multivariate analysis showed that all the scoring systems measured the same factor. A single factor may explain 80.84% of the variability of FI, so all the scoring systems measure the same factor. Patient's continence improves when RAFIS and Jorge-Wexner scores show low values and when the values obtained in the FIQL questionnaire are high.
conclusionRAFIS is a valid and reliable tool to assess Faecal Incontinence.
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.