ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Comparative analysis of three fecal continence scoring systems in anorectal malformations: inter-score agreement and prognostic factors.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 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
purposeTo evaluate inter-score correlation and categorical agreement among the Kelly, Holschneider, and Templeton fecal continence scores in patients with anorectal malformations (ARM), and to identify predictors of poor continence.
methodsIn this retrospective single-center cohort, 110 surgically treated ARM patients (2007-2017) were assessed at latest follow-up using all three scores. Correlation was tested with Spearman analysis, categorical agreement with weighted kappa, and independent risk factors with multivariable logistic regression for each scoring system.
resultsCorrelations were moderate across all pairs (ρ = 0.52-0.68; p < 0.001). Agreement was substantial between Kelly-Holschneider (κ = 0.652) and Holschneider-Templeton (κ = 0.684), but moderate between Kelly-Templeton (κ = 0.595). Poor continence rates differed by instrument (Kelly 18.2%, Holschneider 10.9%, Templeton 17.3%). Independent predictors of poor continence varied by scoring system: weak anal tone and fecal incontinence for Kelly, urinary incontinence for Holschneider, and male sex and systemic pathology for Templeton.
conclusionAlthough the three scores are correlated, clinically meaningful categorical discordance exists. Single-score assessment may therefore be misleading. Combined use of multiple validated continence scores with objective functional assessment is recommended for comprehensive ARM follow-up.
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.