Fecal urgency and incontinence in inflammatory bowel disease perceived by physician and patient: Results from the Swiss fecal urgency survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although increasingly appreciated, little is known about the prevalence of fecal urgency, fecal incontinence and differences between patients' and physicians' perception in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: We performed an online patient and physician survey to evaluate the assessment, prevalence and impact of fecal urgency and incontinence in IBD. RESULTS: A total of 593 patients (44.0% ulcerative colitis (UC), 53.5% Crohn's disease (CD), 2.2% indeterminate colitis, 2 not specified) completed the survey (65.8% females, mean age 47.1 years). Fecal urgency was often reported (UC: 98.5%, CD: 96.2%) and was prevalent even during remission (UC: 65.9%, CD: 68.5%). Fecal urgency considerably impacted daily activities (visual analog scale [VAS] 5, IQR 3-8). Yet, 22.8% of patients have never discussed fecal urgency with their physicians. Fecal incontinence was experienced by 44.7% of patients and 7.9% on a weekly basis. Diapers/pads were required at least once a month in 20.4% of patients. However, 29.7% of patients never talked with their physician about fecal incontinence. UC was an independent predictor for the presence of moderate-severe fecal urgency (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13-2.41) and fecal incontinence (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.22-2.59). All physicians claimed to regularly inquire about fecal urgency and incontinence. However, the impact of these symptoms on daily activities was overestimated compared with the patient feedback (median VAS 8 vs. 5, p = 0.0113, and 9 vs. 5, p = 0.0187). CONCLUSIONS: Fecal urgency and incontinence are burdensome symptoms in IBD, with a similar prevalence in UC and CD. A mismatch was found between the physician and patient perception. These symptoms should be addressed during outpatient visits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".