Literature DB >> 16400514

Selecting an outcome measure for evaluating treatment in fecal incontinence.

Marije Deutekom1, Maaike P Terra, Annette C Dobben, Marcel G W Dijkgraaf, Richelle J F Felt-Bersma, Jaap Stoker, Patrick M M Bossuyt.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Various outcome measures exist to evaluate treatment in fecal incontinence, including descriptive, severity (fecal incontinence scoring systems), and impact (quality-of-life questionnaires) and diagnostic measures. We studied associations between changes after treatment for a number of outcome measures and compared them to patients' subjective perception of relief.
METHODS: We analyzed data of 66 patients (92 percent female; mean age, 62 years) (Vaizey score, Wexner score, two impact scales, utility, resting pressure, and maximal incremental squeeze pressure) at baseline and after physiotherapy. In a standardized interview by phone, we asked patients to compare their situation before and after treatment. Correlations between changes in outcome measures were calculated. These changes were compared with patients' subjective perception.
RESULTS: There was a high correlation between the changes in the Vaizey and the Wexner scores (r = 0.94, P < 0.01). Changes in Vaizey and Wexner scores correlated moderately with changes in maximum incremental squeeze pressure (r = -0.29, -0.30, both P < 0.05). Changes in utility and resting pressure were not correlated with changes in any of the other measurements (all r values between -0.086 and 0.18). Average severity scores (Vaizey and Wexner) were 1 point lower for patients who rated their situation as worse or equal (62 percent), 4 points lower for patients who reported their situation to be better (21 percent), and 9 points lower in patients who rated their situation much better (17 percent) (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: Severity measures are best related to patients' subjective perception of relief.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16400514     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-005-0162-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  15 in total

1.  Controlling anal incontinence in women by performing anal exercises with biofeedback or loperamide (CAPABLe) trial: Design and methods.

Authors:  J Eric Jelovsek; Alayne D Markland; William E Whitehead; Matthew D Barber; Diane K Newman; Rebecca G Rogers; Keisha Dyer; Anthony Visco; Vivian W Sung; Gary Sutkin; Susan F Meikle; Marie G Gantz
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 2.  The current role of imaging techniques in faecal incontinence.

Authors:  M P Terra; J Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-05-11       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Responsiveness and interpretability of incontinence severity scores and FIQL in patients with fecal incontinence: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  E M J Bols; H J M Hendriks; L C M Berghmans; C G M I Baeten; R A de Bie
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Relationship between symptoms and quality of life in fecal incontinence.

Authors:  K Bedard; S Heymen; O S Palsson; A E Bharucha; W E Whitehead
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 3.598

5.  Home electrical stimulation for women with fecal incontinence: a preliminary randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Nira Cohen-Zubary; Rachel Gingold-Belfer; Inna Lambort; Nir Wasserberg; Haim Krissi; Sigal Levy; Yaron Niv; Ram Dickman
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Pelvic floor consequences of cesarean delivery on maternal request in women with a single birth: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Xiao Xu; Julie S Ivy; Divya A Patel; Sejal N Patel; Dean G Smith; Scott B Ransom; Dee Fenner; John O L Delancey
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Anal pressure in experimental diabetes.

Authors:  Juliana Tieppo; Nélson A Kretzmann Filho; Maura Seleme; Henrique S Fillmann; Bary Berghmans; Norma Possa Marroni
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2009-06-23       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  Referral for anorectal function evaluation is indicated in 65% and beneficial in 92% of patients.

Authors:  Maria M Szojda; Erik Tanis; Chris J J Mulder; Richelle J F Felt-Bersma
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Biofeedback therapy plus anal electrostimulation for fecal incontinence: prognostic factors and effects on anorectal physiology.

Authors:  Adamo Stefano Boselli; Ferdinando Pinna; Stefano Cecchini; Renato Costi; Federico Marchesi; Vincenzo Violi; Leopoldo Sarli; Luigi Roncoroni
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Sacral neuromodulation versus onabotulinumtoxinA for refractory urgency urinary incontinence: impact on fecal incontinence symptoms and sexual function.

Authors:  Uduak U Andy; Cindy L Amundsen; Emily Honeycutt; Alayne D Markland; Gena Dunivan; Keisha Y Dyer; Nicole B Korbly; Megan Bradley; Sandip Vasavada; Donna Mazloomdoost; Sonia Thomas
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-06-15       Impact factor: 8.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.