SynthesisUnited European gastroenterology journal2020
Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review.
Synthesis in United European gastroenterology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity and Reliability of the Turkish St. Mark's Incontinence Score.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Fecal incontinence in hospitalized bipolar disorder patients: prevalence, gender disparities, and associations with demographic and pharmacological factors.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Anal sphincter reconstruction for fecal incontinence: Techniques, outcomes, and future directions.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- Comparison of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction in Women with Ulcerative Colitis and Healthy Population.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2024Article
- Diagnostic tools for fecal incontinence: Scoring systems are the crucial first step.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Faecal incontinence-a comprehensive review.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Review
- Article
- Addressing Fecal Incontinence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Messy Problem.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFecal incontinence is a disabling condition affecting up to 20% of women.
objectiveWe investigated fecal incontinence assessment in both inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients to propose a diagnostic approach for inflammatory bowel disease trials.
methodsWe searched on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library for all studies on adult inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients reporting data on fecal incontinence assessment from January 2009 to December 2019.
resultsIn total, 328 studies were included; 306 studies enrolled non-inflammatory bowel disease patients and 22 studies enrolled inflammatory bowel disease patients. In non-inflammatory bowel disease trials the most used tools were the Wexner score, fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire, Vaizey score and fecal incontinence severity index (in 187, 91, 62 and 33 studies). Anal manometry was adopted in 41.2% and endoanal ultrasonography in 34.0% of the studies. In 142 studies (46.4%) fecal incontinence evaluation was performed with a single instrument, while in 64 (20.9%) and 100 (32.7%) studies two or more instruments were used. In inflammatory bowel disease studies the Wexner score, Vaizey score and inflammatory bowel disease quality of life questionnaire were the most commonly adopted tools (in five (22.7%), five (22.7%) and four (18.2%) studies). Anal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography were performed in 45.4% and 18.2% of the studies.
conclusionBased on prior validation and experience, we propose to use the Wexner score as the first step for fecal incontinence assessment in inflammatory bowel disease trials. Anal manometry and/or endoanal ultrasonography should be taken into account in the case of positive questionnaires.
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.