ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2024
Accuracy of patient-reported bowel symptoms for fecal incontinence: Historical recall versus prospective evaluation.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benign Anorectal Disease Following Weight Loss Interventions Including Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- A comprehensive scoring system for defecation disorders derived by merging various validated patient-reported outcome measures for fecal incontinence, chronic constipation, and obstructed defecation.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Observational
- Development and Validation of a Bowel Diary for Fecal Incontinence: Comparison With a Questionnaire.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2025Article
- Association between dietary inflammatory index and fecal incontinence in American adults: a cross-sectional study from NHANES 2005-2010.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFecal incontinence (FI) is characterized by both irregular and unpredictable bowel symptoms. An accurate history of symptoms is important for diagnosis and guiding management. Whether a patient's history of bowel symptoms is reliable or if there is recall bias is unknown.
aimTo evaluate the accuracy of FI symptoms based on patient's recall compared with a prospective stool diary.
methodsFI (Rome IV) patients completed a bowel questionnaire that included leakage episodes and stool consistency. Subsequently they completed a one-week FI stool diary. Agreement and correlation between historical recall and stool diary were compared.
resultsOne hundred patients participated. On average they reported 12 bowel movements (BMs) and five FI episodes per week. Fifty-two percent had completed under-graduation, 33% high school and 15% postgraduation. Using recall, 23% of patients accurately reported the number of FI episodes, whereas 41% underestimated and 36% overestimated its prevalence compared to the FI diary. Similarly, the concordance for the number of BMs was 30%, urgency was 54%, amount of stool leakage was 16%, and stool consistency was 12.5%. The concordance for nocturnal FI events, use of pads and lack of stool awareness were 63%, 75%, and 66.6% respectively.
conclusionThere is poor concordance for key bowel symptoms including the number of FI episodes as reported by FI patients, suggesting significant recall bias. Thus, historical recall of chronic FI symptoms may be less accurate. A prospective stool diary could provide more accurate information for the evaluation of FI patients.
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.