Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2025
Flexible Colonoscopy in Mice to Evaluate the Severity of Colitis and Colorectal Tumors Using a Validated Endoscopic Scoring System
Published on: October 16, 2013
New objective scoring system to clinically assess fecal incontinence
Pankaj Garg1,2, Iwona Sudol-Szopinska3, Małgorzata Kolodziejczak4
1Colorectal Surgery, Garg Fistula Research Institute (GFRI), Panchkula 134113, Haryana, India.
Background:
Several scoring systems are used to assess fecal incontinence (FI), among which, the most commonly used are Wexner and Vaizey's scoring systems. However, there are significant lacunae in these scoring systems, due to which they are neither accurate nor comprehensive.
Aim:
To develop a new scoring system for FI that is accurate, comprehensive, and easy to use.
Methods:
A pro forma was made in which six types of FI were included: solid, liquid, flatus, mucous, stress, and urge. The weight for each FI was determined by asking a group of patients and laypersons to give a disability score to each type of FI from 0 to 100 (0- least, 100- maximum disability). The disability was assessed on a modified EQ-5D+ (EuroQol) description system, 4D3L (4 dimensions and 3 levels) for each FI. The average score of each FI was calculated, divided by 10, and rounded off to determine the weight of each FI type. The scores for the three levels of frequency of each FI were assigned as never = 0 (No episode of FI ever), occasional = 1 (≤ 1 episode of FI/ wk), and common = 2 (> 1 episode of FI/ wk), and was termed as frequency score. The score for each FI would be derived by multiplying the frequency score and the weight for that FI type. In the second phase of the study, a group of colorectal surgeons was asked to rank the six FI types in order of severity, and their ranking was compared with the patient and laypersons' rankings.
Results:
Fifty patients and 50 laypersons participated in the study. The weight was assigned to each FI (solid-8, liquid-8, urge-7, flatus-6, mucus-6, and stress-5), and an new scoring system was formulated. The maximum possible score was 80 (total incontinence), and the least 0 (no incontinence). The surgeons' ranking of FI severity did not correlate well with patients' and laypersons' rankings of FI, highlighting that surgeons and patients may perceive the severity of FI differently.
Conclusion:
A new scoring system for FI was formulated, which was simple, logical, comprehensive, and easy to use, and eliminated previous shortcomings. Patients' and surgeons' perceptions of FI severity of FI did not correlate well.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:25Assessment of the Rectum and Anus
Rectal Inspection
Begin by inspecting the perianal and anal areas for color, texture, rashes,...
01:30Irritable Bowel Syndrome II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Evaluation
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is classified into subtypes based on the predominant bowel habits as determined by the Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS). The subtypes are:
01:17Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System I: Subjective Data
Health History
The initial step in assessing the GI system is obtaining a comprehensive health history. This includes inquiring about the patient's history or presence of problems...
01:22Imaging Studies VI: Voiding Cystourethrography and Cystography
01:29Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System II: Health Perception Pattern
Health Perception Patterns
Health perception patterns offer valuable insights into a patient's lifestyle habits and how they may impact their GI health. These patterns include:
01:21Inflammatory Bowel Disease V: Surgical Management
Here are some common surgical interventions for IBD: