ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2025
Development and Validation of a Bowel Diary for Fecal Incontinence: Comparison With a Questionnaire.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Trial: Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Anal Insert Device for Treatment of Faecal Incontinence.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Trial
- Outcomes for a digital prescription mobile application for adults with irritable bowel syndrome: an uncontrolled trial.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Trial
- Irritable Bowel Syndrome in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Evidence-Based Practical Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsBowel diaries are used to characterize the severity of fecal incontinence (FI) but have not been adequately validated for this purpose. Our aims were to validate a new bowel diary and to compare the characteristics of FI as assessed with a bowel diary and a validated questionnaire.
methodsIn this four-center prospective study, patients with a history of FI and asymptomatic controls completed a 28-day bowel diary and validated questionnaires to evaluate bowel habits and FI, quality of life related to FI (FIQoL), and PROMIS scales for anxiety, depression, and self-efficacy.
resultsAmong 59 participants with FI and 29 asymptomatic controls, the bowel diary was 97% sensitive and 93% specific for distinguishing between FI participants and controls. Over 28 days, FI participants experienced an average [SD] of 31.1 [50.7] FI episodes, consisting of staining (12.6 [14.9]), some stool (12.5 [20.3]), or a full bowel movement (4.4 [8.5]). Correlations between the questionnaire and diary were statistically significant for frequency (Spearman ρ = 0.5, p < 0.001), amount (ρ = 0.4, p < 0.001), and awareness of FI (ρ = 0.3, p = 0.04). In 71% of participants, there was agreement between the consistency of FI as reported in the questionnaire and the diary. More severe FI was associated with poorer FIQoL (p = 0.002). Anxiety, depression, and self-efficacy scores did not significantly affect the agreement between the frequency of FI reported in the diary and questionnaire.
conclusionThis bowel diary effectively discriminates between healthy participants and those with FI. There is significant, albeit modest, agreement between the characteristics of FI recorded with a diary and a questionnaire.
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.