ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2023
New objective scoring system to clinically assess fecal incontinence.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Change in faecal incontinence pattern after gastric bypass surgery: related to change in anal sphincter thickness?International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Anterior Horseshoe Anal Fistula Treated With IFTAK (Interception of Fistulous Track With Application of Ksharasutra) Technique: A Case Study.Case reports in surgery · 2026Article
- Ileal J-Pouch interposition as a salvage technique for failed coloanal anastomosis: a case report.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) and secondary repair (overlapping sphincteroplasty) in a colorectal unit: case series.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Controversies in fecal incontinence.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Letter to the Editor: "Urgency an important factor when assessing fecal incontinence".Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of complex anal fistula.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Review
- A new scoring system on the horizon to assess fecal incontinence: Garg Incontinence Scores (GIS).Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Diagnostic tools for fecal incontinence: Scoring systems are the crucial first step.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Garg incontinence scores: New scoring system on the horizon to evaluate fecal incontinence. Will it make a difference?World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Rectovaginal Fistulas Not Involving the Rectovaginal Septum Should Be Treated Like Anal Fistulas: A New Concept and Proposal for a Reclassification of Rectovaginal Fistulas.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral scoring systems are used to assess fecal incontinence (FI), among which, the most commonly used are Wexner and Vaizey's scoring systems. However, there are significant lacunae in these scoring systems, due to which they are neither accurate nor comprehensive.
aimTo develop a new scoring system for FI that is accurate, comprehensive, and easy to use.
methodsA pro forma was made in which six types of FI were included: solid, liquid, flatus, mucous, stress, and urge. The weight for each FI was determined by asking a group of patients and laypersons to give a disability score to each type of FI from 0 to 100 (0- least, 100- maximum disability). The disability was assessed on a modified EQ-5D+ (EuroQol) description system, 4D3L (4 dimensions and 3 levels) for each FI. The average score of each FI was calculated, divided by 10, and rounded off to determine the weight of each FI type. The scores for the three levels of frequency of each FI were assigned as never = 0 (No episode of FI ever), occasional = 1 (≤ 1 episode of FI/ wk), and common = 2 (> 1 episode of FI/ wk), and was termed as frequency score. The score for each FI would be derived by multiplying the frequency score and the weight for that FI type. In the second phase of the study, a group of colorectal surgeons was asked to rank the six FI types in order of severity, and their ranking was compared with the patient and laypersons' rankings.
resultsFifty patients and 50 laypersons participated in the study. The weight was assigned to each FI (solid-8, liquid-8, urge-7, flatus-6, mucus-6, and stress-5), and an new scoring system was formulated. The maximum possible score was 80 (total incontinence), and the least 0 (no incontinence). The surgeons' ranking of FI severity did not correlate well with patients' and laypersons' rankings of FI, highlighting that surgeons and patients may perceive the severity of FI differently.
conclusionA new scoring system for FI was formulated, which was simple, logical, comprehensive, and easy to use, and eliminated previous shortcomings. Patients' and surgeons' perceptions of FI severity of FI did not correlate well.
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.