Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Gut logoLink to Gut
. 1999 Jan;44(1):77–80. doi: 10.1136/gut.44.1.77

Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems

C Vaizey 1, E Carapeti 1, J Cahill 1, M Kamm 1
PMCID: PMC1760067  PMID: 9862829

Abstract

Background—Existing scales for assessing faecal incontinence have not been validated against clinical assessment, or with regard to reproducibility. They also fail to take into account faecal urgency, and the use of antidiarrhoeal medications. 
Aims—To establish the validity, and sensitivity to change, of existing scales and a newly designed incontinence scale. 
Methods—(1) Twenty three patients (21 females, median age 57 years) were prospectively evaluated by two independent clinical observers, using three established scales (Pescatori, Wexner, American Medical Systems), a newly devised scale which also includes details about urgency and antidiarrhoeal drugs, and by a 28 day diary. (2) A further 10 female patients were assessed by the same scales before and after surgery for faecal incontinence. 
Results—(1) Assessments by two independent clinicians correlated well. All four scales and a diary card correlated highly and significantly with the clinical impression, with the new scale reaching the highest correlation (r=0.79, p<0.001). (2) All except one score changed significantly in response to surgical treatment; the new scale showed the greatest change, at the highest level of significance (p=0.004), and correlated best with the clinicians' assessment of change (r=0.94, p<0.001). 
Conclusions—Existing scales for the assessment of faecal incontinence correlate well with careful clinical impression of severity, and serve as useful and reproducible measures for comparison of patients and treatments. A newly devised scale has shown high clinical validity and utility. 



Keywords: faecal incontinence; grading systems

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (104.0 KB).

Figure 1 .

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Diary card. The patients were sent home with 28 of these diary cards and requested to fill out one each night for four weeks. Each positive answer resulted in a numerical score as listed. Maximum score per day = 10 = worst incontinence. 


Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baeten C. G., Geerdes B. P., Adang E. M., Heineman E., Konsten J., Engel G. L., Kester A. D., Spaans F., Soeters P. B. Anal dynamic graciloplasty in the treatment of intractable fecal incontinence. N Engl J Med. 1995 Jun 15;332(24):1600–1605. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199506153322403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Best W. R., Becktel J. M., Singleton J. W. Rederived values of the eight coefficients of the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Gastroenterology. 1979 Oct;77(4 Pt 2):843–846. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Browning G. G., Parks A. G. Postanal repair for neuropathic faecal incontinence: correlation of clinical result and anal canal pressures. Br J Surg. 1983 Feb;70(2):101–104. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800700216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Engel A. F., Kamm M. A., Sultan A. H., Bartram C. I., Nicholls R. J. Anterior anal sphincter repair in patients with obstetric trauma. Br J Surg. 1994 Aug;81(8):1231–1234. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800810853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Jorge J. M., Wexner S. D. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993 Jan;36(1):77–97. doi: 10.1007/BF02050307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lehur P. A., Michot F., Denis P., Grise P., Leborgne J., Teniere P., Buzelin J. M. Results of artificial sphincter in severe anal incontinence. Report of 14 consecutive implantations. Dis Colon Rectum. 1996 Dec;39(12):1352–1355. doi: 10.1007/BF02054523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Miller R., Bartolo D. C., Locke-Edmunds J. C., Mortensen N. J. Prospective study of conservative and operative treatment for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 1988 Feb;75(2):101–105. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800750204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Pescatori M., Anastasio G., Bottini C., Mentasti A. New grading and scoring for anal incontinence. Evaluation of 335 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 1992 May;35(5):482–487. doi: 10.1007/BF02049407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Williams N. S., Patel J., George B. D., Hallan R. I., Watkins E. S. Development of an electrically stimulated neoanal sphincter. Lancet. 1991 Nov 9;338(8776):1166–1169. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)92031-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Gut are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES