SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2021
Comparison of clinical and paraclinical characteristics of patients with urge, mixed, and passive fecal incontinence: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Association Between Levator Ani Integrity and Postpartum Ano-Rectal Dysfunction: A Systematic Review.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of anal motor and rectal sensory dysfunction in male and female patients undergoing anorectal manometry for symptoms of faecal incontinence.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022Pooled it
- Resting and Squeeze Anal Pull-Through Assessments by Fecobionics Demonstrate Weak Anal Sphincters in Patients With Fecal Incontinence.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Provocative tests of anal sphincter function correlate with symptoms and subtypes of faecal incontinence.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- Anorectal Friction Force Is Reduced in Fecal Incontinence.Gastro hep advances · 2025Review
- Endosonographic monitoring of SphinkeeperUpdates in surgery · 2024Observational
- Relationship between anal functional lumen imaging probe (EndoFLIP®) results and the clinical presentation of faecal incontinence.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Fecobionics characterization of female patients with fecal incontinence.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTwo subgroups of fecal incontinence (FI) are described in literature and used in clinical practice. However, the pertinence of this classification of FI is still unknown as there are no clear established guidelines. To a better understanding, we performed a systematic review to characterize the different types of FI (active, passive, or mixed) on the basis of clinical presentation and complementary explorations.
methodsThis systematic literature review was performed in reference to recommendations for systematic review using PRISMA guidelines without date restriction, until May 2020. This systematic review was performed without temporal limitation using MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases.
resultsSix hundred nine unique citations were identified from all the databases combined. Of those, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 8 retrospective observational studies and 13 prospective observational studies. There was a lack of homogeneity in definitions of passive and urge (active) FI among studies. Prevalence of passive and urge FI was respectively of 4.0-5.0 and 15.0-35.0%. Clinical characteristics, physical examination, and endoanal imaging were not evaluated in most studies. In anorectal manometry, maximal squeeze pressure was higher in passive FI subgroup in most studies and results regarding maximal resting pressure remain discordant. There seemed to be no difference regarding first sensation volume and maximal tolerable volume among subgroups. A few studies evaluated pudendal terminal nerve motor latency with no difference among subgroups.
conclusionThere is a lack of well-conducted prospective studies comparing the different subtypes of FI with validated definitions in both clinical and paraclinical examinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33210162What 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.