SynthesisPediatric surgery international2026
Comparison of fecal continence and bowel function scoring systems following anorectal malformation repair: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMultiple instruments are used to assess fecal continence and bowel function after anorectal malformation (ARM) repair, but their comparability is uncertain. This systematic review examined inter-system agreement and differences in the findings produced when two or more scoring systems were applied to the same ARM cohort.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception through 26 April 2026. Original studies applying at least two named fecal continence or bowel function scoring systems to the same ARM cohort were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted QUADAS-2 framework. Because comparable agreement estimates were sparse, results were synthesized narratively (PROSPERO: CRD420261377404).
resultsFifteen studies published from 2012 to 2025, with individual sample sizes of 20-267 participants, were included. Krickenbeck was used in 14 studies (93%) and Kelly in nine (60%). Only one study, based on 39 parent-reported assessments, reported numerical inter-system agreement estimates; weighted κ values for four score pairs ranged from 0.256 to 0.343. Other studies described category discordance or differences in group-level findings. In one cohort, Kelly did not identify a between-group difference detected by Krickenbeck and Rintala. In another small cohort, Kelly continence and the Krickenbeck constipation domain favored different surgical groups, although they assessed different outcome constructs. Blinding between instrument administrations was unreported in 12 studies.
conclusionThe limited available evidence suggests that commonly used ARM bowel function instruments may yield non-equivalent information, but it is insufficient to establish their interchangeability or the superiority of any single system. Krickenbeck is currently the most frequently used instrument. Prospective comparative studies using standardized administration and appropriate agreement analyses are needed before a universal core instrument can be recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878884What 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.