Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35948559›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Disease primers2022

Faecal incontinence in adults.

Adil E Bharucha, Charles H Knowles, Isabelle Mack, Allison Malcolm, Nicholas Oblizajek, Satish Rao, S Mark Scott, Andrea Shin, Paul Enck

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Disease primers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
16.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Global Prevalence of Fecal Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Adil E BharuchaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. bharucha.adil@mayo.edu.
Charles H KnowlesBlizard Institute, Centre for Neuroscience, Surgery & Trauma, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9854-6754
Isabelle MackUniversity Hospital, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Tübingen, Germany.
Allison MalcolmDepartment of Gastroenterology, Royal North Shore Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9795-3788
Nicholas OblizajekDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Satish RaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA.
S Mark ScottBlizard Institute, Centre for Neuroscience, Surgery & Trauma, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7997-1533
Andrea ShinDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Paul EnckUniversity Hospital, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Tübingen, Germany. paul.enck@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8873-0486
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Tübingen · DEIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Faecal incontinence, which is defined by the unintentional loss of solid or liquid stool, has a worldwide prevalence of ≤7% in community-dwelling adults and can markedly impair quality of life. Nonetheless, many patients might not volunteer the symptom owing to embarrassment. Bowel disturbances, particularly diarrhoea, anal sphincter trauma (obstetrical injury or previous surgery), rectal urgency and burden of chronic illness are the main risk factors for faecal incontinence; others include neurological disorders, inflammatory bowel disease and pelvic floor anatomical disturbances. Faecal incontinence is classified by its type (urge, passive or combined), aetiology (anorectal disturbance, bowel symptoms or both) and severity, which is derived from the frequency, volume, consistency and nature (urge or passive) of stool leakage. Guided by the clinical features, diagnostic tests and therapies are implemented stepwise. When simple measures (for example, bowel modifiers such as fibre supplements, laxatives and anti-diarrhoeal agents) fail, anorectal manometry and other tests (endoanal imaging, defecography, rectal compliance and sensation, and anal neurophysiological tests) are performed as necessary. Non-surgical options (diet and lifestyle modification, behavioural measures, including biofeedback therapy, pharmacotherapy for constipation or diarrhoea, and anal or vaginal barrier devices) are often effective, especially in patients with mild faecal incontinence. Thereafter, perianal bulking agents, sacral neuromodulation and other surgeries may be considered when necessary.

Indexed as

Fecal IncontinenceAdultAnal CanalConstipationDiarrheaFemaleHumansPelvic FloorQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID35948559
OpenAlexW4291020212

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.