Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33537501›Full record

ReviewJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2021

Japanese Practice Guidelines for Fecal Incontinence Part 1-Definition, Epidemiology, Etiology, Pathophysiology and Causes, Risk Factors, Clinical Evaluations, and Symptomatic Scores and QoL Questionnaire for Clinical Evaluations-English Version.

Kotaro Maeda, Tetsuo Yamana, Yoshihiko Takao, Toshiki Mimura, Hidetoshi Katsuno, Mihoko Seki, Akira Tsunoda, Kazuhiko Yoshioka, Fecal Incontinence Guideline Preparation Committee

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Kotaro MaedaInternational Medical Center Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Japan.
Tetsuo YamanaDepartment of Coloproctology, Tokyo Yamate Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshihiko TakaoDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Sanno Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Toshiki MimuraDepartment of Surgery, Jichi Medical University, Tochigi, Japan.
Hidetoshi KatsunoDepartment of Surgery, Fujita Health University Okazaki Medical Center, Okazaki, Japan.
Mihoko SekiNursing Division, Tokyo Yamate Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Akira TsunodaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kameda Medical Center, Kamogawa, Japan.
Kazuhiko YoshiokaDepartment of Surgery, Kansai Medical University Medical Center, Osaka, Japan.
Fecal Incontinence Guideline Preparation Committee
Tokyo Yamate Medical Center · JPFujita Health University · JPFujita Health University Hospital · JPJichi Medical University · JPKameda Medical Center · JPKansai Medical University · JPSanno Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fecal incontinence (FI) is defined as involuntary or uncontrollable loss of feces. Gas incontinence is defined as involuntary or uncontrollable loss of flatus, while anal incontinence is defined as the involuntary loss of feces or flatus. The prevalence of FI in people over 65 in Japan is 8.7% in the male population and 6.6% among females. The etiology of FI is usually not limited to one specific cause, with risk factors for FI including physiological factors, such as age and gender; comorbidities, such as diabetes and irritable bowel syndrome; and obstetric factors, such as multiple deliveries, home delivery, first vaginal delivery, and forceps delivery. In the initial clinical evaluation of FI, the factors responsible for individual symptoms are gathered from the history and examination of the anorectal region. The evaluation is the basis of all medical treatments for FI, including initial treatment, and also serves as a baseline for deciding the need for a specialized defecation function test and selecting treatment in stages. Following the general physical examination, together with history taking, inspection (including anoscope), and palpation (including digital anorectal and vaginal examination) of the anorectal area, clinicians can focus on the causes of FI. For the clinical evaluation of FI, it is useful to use Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), such as scores and questionnaires, to evaluate the symptomatic severity of FI and its influence over quality of life (QoL).

Indexed as

anal incontinencedefecation disordersfecal incontinenceguidelineJapanese practice guideline

Identifiers

PMID33537501
PMCPMC7843140
OpenAlexW3122366604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.