Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37498418›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2023

Evaluating the risk factors for the development of benign disorders of defaecation: a surgical perspective.

P Chaichanavichkij, M Hartmann, S M Scott, N Fenton, C H Knowles, Disorders of Defaecation Delphi Group

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P ChaichanavichkijNational Bowel Research Centre and GI Physiology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience, Surgery & Trauma, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, 1st Floor, Abernethy Building, 2 Newark Street, London, E1 2AT, UK. p.chaichanavichkij@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2244-5775
M HartmannRisk and Information Management Research Group, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
S M ScottNational Bowel Research Centre and GI Physiology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience, Surgery & Trauma, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, 1st Floor, Abernethy Building, 2 Newark Street, London, E1 2AT, UK.
N FentonRisk and Information Management Research Group, School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
C H KnowlesNational Bowel Research Centre and GI Physiology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience, Surgery & Trauma, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, 1st Floor, Abernethy Building, 2 Newark Street, London, E1 2AT, UK.
Disorders of Defaecation Delphi Group
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere remains uncertainty as to which risk factors are important for the development of defaecatory problems as a result of heterogeneity of published evidence. Understanding the impact of risk factors may be important in selecting targets for disease prevention or reversal. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate risk factors for faecal incontinence and chronic constipation.

methodsRisk factors for chronic constipation and faecal incontinence were long-listed from scientific literature, then anonymously evaluated (by 50 predominantly colorectal surgical experts from the UK Pelvic Floor Society) using a Delphi technique. Each risk factor was rated as independent, a co-factor, or not a risk factor. Independent risk factors were rated between 1 (not important) and 10 (critically important) with mean (± standard deviation) calculated.

resultsThirty-eight risk factors for chronic constipation were evaluated. Eighteen were classed as independent and 16 as co-factors. Opioid analgesia (7.87 ± 2.05), eating disorders (7.80 ± 1.72), and history of abuse (7.70 ± 1.89) were scored as most important independent risk factors. Female sex (6.60 ± 2.02) was considered an independent risk factor but increasing age was rated a co-factor. Thirty-three risk factors for faecal incontinence were evaluated. Twenty were classed as independent and eight as co-factors. Third- or fourth-degree tear (8.88 ± 1.57), instrumental delivery (8.47 ± 1.58), and grand multiparity (8.00 ± 1.63) were rated most important. Increasing age (7.41 ± 2.14) and female sex (7.58 ± 2.05) were both considered independent risk factors.

conclusionsSeveral risk factors for chronic constipation and faecal incontinence were selected by Delphi approach. These factors will feed forward into Bayesian models of disease prediction that combine data and expert knowledge.

Indexed as

Fecal IncontinenceBayes TheoremConstipationDefecationFemaleHumansConstipationDelphiFaecal incontinenceRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID37498418
PMCPMC10484816
OpenAlexW4385294832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.