Advertisement

Strong agreement between interview-obtained and self-administered Wexner and St. Mark’s scores using a single questionnaire

  • Stig NordervalEmail author
  • Mona Birgitte Rydningen
  • Ragnhild Sørum Falk
  • Arvid Stordahl
  • Hege Hølmo Johannessen
Original Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

St Mark’s incontinence score (SMIS) and the Wexner score have been constructed and validated as interview-based scoring systems. We developed a single questionnaire from which a separate SMIS or Wexner score could be derived. This study aimed to demonstrate the level of agreement between self-administered (sSMIS and sWexner) and interview-based (iSMIS and iWexner) scores using this questionnaire.

Methods

One hundred five consecutive patients (30 male) seen in the incontinence outpatient clinics at the Østfold Hospital Trust, Sarpsborg, and University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, completed the self-administered incontinence questionnaire prior to the appointment. Following clinical investigation, the patients were interviewed about their symptoms according to the SMIS and Wexner scores, with the interviewers blinded to the results from self-reported questionnaire. Agreement between total scores and between subscores of the various items were determined using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa statistics, respectively.

Results

The self-administered questionnaire was incomplete in six cases (5.7%) and the interview-based was incomplete in two cases. Agreement was almost perfect between the iSMIS and sSMIS and between the iWexner score and sWexner score (ICC 0.90 and 0.92, respectively). Agreement was substantial to almost perfect for all items in both scoring systems, with kappa values ranging from 0.64–0.94. Mean iSMIS was 9.48 versus 9.53 for sSMIS (p = 0.90) and 8.26 versus 8.44 for the iWexner and sWexner score, respectively (p = 0.42).

Conclusion

The SMIS and Wexner scores can be completed by the patients using a single questionnaire, and the derived SMIS and Wexner scores are highly consistent with scores obtained by interview.

Keywords

Fecal incontinence Anal incontinence Wexner score St Mark’s score Scoring systems 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Conference presentation

Poster presentation at the International Continence Society 48th annual meeting, Philadelphia, USA, 28–31 August 2018.

References

  1. 1.
    Ilnyckyj A. Prevalence of idiopathic fecal incontinence in a community-based sample. Can J Gastroenterol. 2010;24(4):251–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menees SB, Almario CV, Spiegel BMR, Chey WD. Prevalence of and factors associated with fecal incontinence: results from a population-based survey. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(6):1672–1681 e1673.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharma A, Yuan L, Marshall RJ, Merrie AE, Bissett IP. Systematic review of the prevalence of faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2016;103(12):1589–97.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36(1):77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44(1):77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Meegdenburg MM, Trzpis M, Broens PM. Fecal incontinence and parity in the Dutch population: A cross-sectional analysis. United European Gastroenterol J. 2018;6(5):781–90.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2050640618760386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rygh AB, Korner H. The overlap technique versus end-to-end approximation technique for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter rupture: a randomized controlled study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(10):1256–62.  https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349.2010.512073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bakx R, Sprangers MA, Oort FJ, van Tets WF, Bemelman WA, Slors JF, et al. Development and validation of a colorectal functional outcome questionnaire. Int J Color Dis. 2005;20(2):126–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-004-0638-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johannessen HH, Norderval S, Stordahl A, Falk RS, Wibe A. Interview-based versus self-reported anal incontinence using St Mark's incontinence score. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(5):667–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3363-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hussain ZI, Lim M, Stojkovic S. The test-retest reliability of fecal incontinence severity and quality-of-life assessment tools. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(5):638–44.  https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000000118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab. 2010;19(4):539–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70(4):213–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liao JJ. Quantifying an agreement study. Int J Biostat. 2015;11(1):125–33.  https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2014-0030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maeda Y, Pares D, Norton C, Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA. Does the St. Mark's incontinence score reflect patients' perceptions? A review of 390 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(4):436–42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9157-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cam C, Selcuk S, Asoglu MR, Tug N, Akdemir Y, Ay P, et al. Validation of the Wexner scale in women with fecal incontinence in a Turkish population. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(11):1375–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1464-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tourangeau R, Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(5):859–83.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johannessen HH, Morkved S, Stordahl A, Sandvik L, Wibe A. Anal incontinence and quality of life in late pregnancy: a cross-sectional study. BJOG. 2014;121(8):978–87.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bols EM, Hendriks HJ, Berghmans LC, Baeten CG, de Bie RA. Responsiveness and interpretability of incontinence severity scores and FIQL in patients with fecal incontinence: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):469–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1886-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roos AM, Sultan AH, Thakar R. St. Mark's incontinence score for assessment of anal incontinence following obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(4):407–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0784-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sansoni J, Hawthorne G, Fleming G, Marosszeky N. The revised faecal incontinence scale: a clinical validation of a new, short measure for assessment and outcomes evaluation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(5):652–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e318279c2ac.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryUniversity Hospital of North NorwayTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Gastrosurgical Research Group, Department of Clinical MedicineUiT the Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway
  3. 3.Oslo Centre of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryØstfold Hospital TrustSarpsborgNorway
  5. 5.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationØstfold Hospital TrustSarpsborgNorway

Personalised recommendations