Bowel burdens: a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the relationships between bowel dysfunction and quality of life after spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: Many individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) experience autonomic dysfunction, including profound impairments to bowel and cardiovascular function. Neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) is emerging as a potential determinant of quality of life (QoL) after SCI. For individuals with high-level lesions ( > T6), bowel care-related autonomic dysreflexia (B-AD; profound episodic hypertension) further complicates bowel care. We aimed to evaluate the extent of bowel dysfunction after SCI, and the impact of bowel dysfunction on QoL after SCI. METHODS: We searched five databases to identify research assessing the influence of NBD or B-AD on QoL after SCI. Metrics of bowel dysfunction (fecal incontinence [FI], constipation, time to complete, and B-AD) and QoL data were extracted and synthesised. Where possible, meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Our search identified 2042 titles, of which 39 met our inclusion criteria. Individuals with SCI identified problems with NBD (74.7%), FI (56.9%), and constipation (54.6%), and 49.3% of individuals with SCI > T6 experienced B-AD. Additionally, 40.3% of individuals experienced prolonged defecation ( > 30 min). Moderate/severe deterioration in QoL due to NBD was reported by 55.5% of individuals with SCI, with negative impacts on physical, emotional, and social health-related QoL associated with inflexibility of bowel routines, fear of accidents, and loss of independence. CONCLUSION: Bowel dysfunction and bowel care challenges are prevalent and disabling for individuals with SCI, with a profoundly negative impact on QoL. Improving bowel management is a key target to improve QoL for those living with SCI.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".