Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Two recent reviews provide perspective on the prevalence of faecal incontinence.M- ibag et al.(2003) suggest a range of 1%-11% in population-based studies and 4%-50% 2 in other,mainly clinic-based studies.Harrari (2002) suggests a range of 2%-18% in the community as distinct from 13%-54% in long-term care. The issues raised by these and other reviews (Tariq et al.2003) include a lack of definition of concepts and in- cators,inconsistent age and gender relationships,lack of information on social groups and differences in health-related risk factors identified.The aim of this paper is to - view all the evidence from population-based studies and thereby clarify the epide- ology of faecal incontinence. The search strategy included electronic search of Medline and Embase for English language papers concerning ˜faecal incontinence'.Separate searches were carried out for ˜prevalence' (1984-2003) and ˜risk factors', ˜correlates' or ˜predictors' (1996-2003). Exclusion criteria for prevalence studies were: non-population-based; response rate of less than 60%; data collection from third parties; and lack of definition of faecal - continence as a whole and as distinct from anal incontinence.Studies concerning risk factors were excluded if they concerned selected groups (e.g.clinical series and lo- term care),local conditions affecting the pelvic floor (e.g.obstetric factors and c- cer), or children.All eligible studies were methodologically evaluated for potential biases.Information on prevalence and risk correspond to levels of evidence II-3 and II-2,respectively (Canadian Task Force on Preventive Care).

Urology. Andrology --- Surgery --- Gynaecology. Obstetrics --- urologie --- chirurgie --- gynaecologie --- vroedkunde