One-year impact of a bowel management program in treating fecal incontinence in patients with anorectal malformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with anorectal malformations (ARM) need a bowel management program (BMP) to manage lifelong problems of fecal incontinence or severe constipation. We aimed to evaluate the sustainability of the results in such a program. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed in children with ARM who attended our BMP (2015-2019). Standardized definitions and validated tools were used to assess fecal continence (Baylor Continence Scale), constipation (Cleveland Constipation Scoring System), urinary symptoms (Vancouver Symptoms Score), and the Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at the start of BMP and 1-year after completion of the program. RESULTS: 222 patients with ARM at a median age of 6.7 (IQR, 4.9-10.1) years were identified. All (100%) soiled at intake with 149 (67.1%) patients being treated with rectal or antegrade enemas and 73 (32.9%) with oral laxatives. At 1 year 150 (70.4%) were clean, 72.7% were on enemas and 27.3% were on laxatives (p = 0.08). 109 out of 148 (73.6%) patients were clean on enemas. A further 41 out of 66 (62.1%) patients were continent on laxatives with voluntary bowel movements and clean. In the group that was clean, there was improvement in Baylor Continence Scale (25 vs. 13.0, p < 0.000000002), Vancouver (11 vs. 6, p = 0.0110) scores, and clinically relevant improvement in the total PedsQL HRQL (78-85) and the PedsQL HRQL physical function (86-92) and psychosocial domain (77-82). There was no improvement in Cleveland (10 vs. 9, p = 0.31) score. CONCLUSION: An intensive BMP offers significant benefits in the treatment of fecal incontinence in ARM. It appears to also improve urinary incontinence and urinary voiding as well as the patient's quality of life. These changes are sustainable over at least one year.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".