Neurogenic bowel dysfunction: Clinical management recommendations of the Neurologic Incontinence Committee of the Fifth International Consultation on Incontinence 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Evidence‐based guidelines for the management of neurological disease and lower bowel dysfunction have been produced by the International Consultations on Incontinence (ICI). These are comprehensive guidelines, and were developed to have world‐wide relevance. Aims To update clinical management of neurogenic bowel dysfunction from the recommendations of the 4th ICI, 2009. Materials and Methods A series of evidence reviews and updates were performed by members of the working group. The resulting guidelines were presented at the 2012 meeting of the European Association of Urology for consultation, and modifications applied to deliver evidence based conclusions and recommendations for the scientific report of the 5th edition of the ICI in 2013. Results The current review is a synthesis of the conclusions and recommendations, including the algorithms for initial and specialized management of neurogenic bowel dysfunction. The pathophysiology is described in terms of spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease. Assessment requires detailed history and clinical assessment, general investigations, and specialized testing, if required. Treatment primarily focuses on optimizing stool consistency and regulating bowel evacuation to improve quality of life. Symptom management covers conservative and interventional measures to promote good habits and assist stool evacuation, along with prevention of incontinence. Education is essential to achieving optimal bowel management. Discussion The review offers a pragmatic approach to management in the context of complex pathophysiology and varied evidence base.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".