ReviewFrontiers in surgery2024
Faecal incontinence-a comprehensive review.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of fecal incontinence after childbirth in Turkey: systematic review and meta-analysis.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Association of dietary habits and physical activity with the severity of fecal incontinence in patients with colorectal cancer after minimally invasive surgery: An exploratory study.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation in Patients With Fecal Incontinence: A Cross-Sectional Study of a Tertiary Referral Cohort.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Electrode Placement and Continence Outcomes in Pediatric Hirschsprung's Disease: Rectal Versus Surface Stimulation After Trans-Anal Pull-Through Surgeries.Annals of rehabilitation medicine · 2026Article
- Editorial: Advancing benign surgery: techniques, outcomes, and educational innovations.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Social Isolation Among Individuals with Incontinence: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- Management of Fecal Incontinence: Etiology, Diagnostic Approach, and Conservative Therapy.Visceral medicine · 2024Review
- Role of Hypoxic Secretome from Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Enhancing Tissue Repair: Regulatory Effects on HIF-1α, VEGF, and Fibroblast in a Sphincterotomy Rat Model.Journal of inflammation research · 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
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Faecal incontinence (FI) is a distressing and often stigmatizing condition characterised as the recurrent involuntary passage of liquid or solid faeces. The reported prevalence of FI exhibits considerable variation, ranging from 7 to 15% in the general population, with higher rates reported among older adults and women. This review explores the pathophysiology mechanisms, the diagnostic modalities and the efficiency of treatment options up to date. Methods: A review of the literature was conducted to identify the pathophysiological pathways, investigation and treatment modalities. Result and discussion: This review provides an in-depth exploration of the intricate physiological processes that maintain continence in humans. It then guides the reader through a detailed examination of diagnostic procedures and a thorough analysis of the available treatment choices, including their associated success rates. This review is an ideal resource for individuals with a general medical background and colorectal surgeons who lack specialized knowledge in pelvic floor disorders, as it offers a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI).
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.