ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Instruments for the Assessment of Fecal and Anal Incontinence: A Scoping Review.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisFecal and anal incontinence (FI/AI) significantly impact physical, emotional, and social aspects of quality of life. Accurate assessment tools are essential for diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment evaluation.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Searches were performed in EMBASE, MEDLINE (PubMed), and PEDro from database earliest available records to February 2025. Studies on development, validation, or cross-cultural adaptation of FI/AI assessment tools in English or Portuguese were included.
resultsFifty-two studies describing 52 assessment instruments were included. The majority of tools were self-administered questionnaires (n = 34, 65.4%) and primarily assessed quality of life. Only a minority reported complete psychometric validation and formal cross-cultural adaptation procedures, and few instruments addressed objective anorectal motor or sensory function.
conclusionsAlthough several instruments are available, important gaps remain, particularly regarding functional evaluation, psychometric completeness, and cross-cultural adaptation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42171717What 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.