Fecal Incontinence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Understanding of the prevalence, pathophysiology, and management of fecal incontinence (FI) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients without an ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is suboptimal. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence, pathophysiology, and management of primary FI in IBD patients without IPAA. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1966 through March 2017) for studies on the prevalence, physiology, or management of FI in IBD patients without IPAA. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled prevalence rates and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics, Cochran Q statistic, and sensitivity analyses. Results: Seventeen studies were included. Six studies evaluated the prevalence of FI in 4671 IBD patients. There was significant heterogeneity among the studies, but the pooled prevalence of FI among case-control studies was homogeneous at 24% (95% CI 18%-30%, I2 = 50.6%, P = 0.16). FI was more common among IBD patients than non-IBD controls (OR = 7.73; 95% CI 6.26 to 9.84). Therapeutic options were poorly evaluated in uncontrolled studies. Surgery was effective in 70% of patients (7/10), sacral nerve stimulation was effective in 100% of patients (5/5), and 41.6% of patients (5/12) reported subjective improvement in FI with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation. Conclusions: FI is prevalent in IBD patients without IPAA, and more common than non-IBD controls. Additional controlled studies are warranted to further identify effective therapeutic interventions for FI in IBD. 10.1093/ibd/izx109_video1izx109_Video_15760611117001.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".