Introduction and hypothesis
St Mark’s incontinence score (SMIS) was originally designed and validated for use in an interview setting (iSMIS), and there is conflicting evidence for the validity of the self-administered SMIS (sSMIS). Our objective was to compare self-administered and interview-based reports of anal incontinence (AI) symptoms.
A total of 147 women reported symptoms of AI on a sSMIS before inclusion in a clinical study investigating the effect of conservative treatment for AI 1 year after delivery. After clinical investigations, an iSMIS was completed by one of two consultant surgeons blinded to the sSMIS results. The correlation and agreement among the individual items of the iSMIS and the sSMIS were assessed using Spearman’s rho and weighted kappa statistics, respectively.
The mean iSMIS and sSMIS reported was 4.0 (SD: 3.6) and 4.3 (SD: 4.0), respectively. Spearman’s rho showed a strong relationship between the two total SMIS scores (r = 0.769, n = 147, p < 0.001), and explained variance was 59% (r2=0.591). Except for the individual item about gas incontinence, women reported more frequent AI symptoms on the sSMIS than on the iSMIS. The assessment of consistency among the individual items of the iSMIS and sSMIS showed substantial agreement (κ ≥ 0.60) for all items except for fair agreement for the item about formed stool incontinence (κ = 0.22), and moderate for the item about any change in lifestyle (κ = 0.5).
The level of consistency between the two methods of reporting anal incontinence symptoms suggests that the St Mark’s score may be used as both an interview-based and a self-administered incontinence score.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36(1):77–97.
Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44(1):77–80.
Bols EM, Hendriks EJ, Deutekom M, Berghmans BC, Baeten CG, de Bie RA. Inconclusive psychometric properties of the Vaizey score in fecally incontinent patients: a prospective cohort study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(3):370–7. doi:10.1002/nau.20758.
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. doi:10.1007/s00384-004-0638-9.
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. doi:10.1097/DCR.0b013e318279c2ac.
Laake P, Benestad HB, Olsen BR. Research methodology in the medical and biological sciences. London: Elsevier; 2007.
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. doi:10.1007/s10350-007-9157-4.
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. doi:10.1007/s00192-008-0784-7.
Johannessen HH, Wibe A, Stordahl A, Sandvik L, Morkved S. Do pelvic floor muscle exercises reduce postpartum anal incontinence? A randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2017;124(4):686–94. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14145.
Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1990.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
Boreham MK, Richter HE, Kenton KS, Nager CW, Gregory WT, Aronson MP, et al. Anal incontinence in women presenting for gynecologic care: prevalence, risk factors, and impact upon quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1637–42. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.030.
Ogata H, Mimura T, Hanazaki K. Validation study of the Japanese version of the faecal incontinence quality of life scale. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14(2):194–9. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02558.x.
Johannessen HH, Morkved S, Stordahl A, Sandvik L, Wibe A. Anal incontinence and quality of life in late pregnancy: a cross-sectional study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(8):978–87.
Guise JM, Morris C, Osterweil P, Li H, Rosenberg D, Greenlick M. Incidence of fecal incontinence after childbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(2 Pt 1):281–8. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000254164.67182.78.
Eva UF, Gun W, Preben K. Prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence and symptoms of genital prolapse in women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(3):280–6. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00103.x.
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. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1886-9.
Maeda Y, Vaizey CJ, Hollington P, Stern J, Kamm MA. Physiological, psychological and behavioural characteristics of men and women with faecal incontinence. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(9):927–32. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01717.x.
Tjandra JJ, Chan MK, Kwok SY, Yeh CH, Tan JJ, Sloane K, et al. Predictive factors for faecal incontinence after third or fourth degree obstetric tears: a clinico-physiologic study. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(7):681–8. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01467.x.
The authors thank Clara Karoliussen for assembling the cohort, collecting background data, and contributing to the clinical investigations at St Olavs Hospital; Negin Sadati for collecting background data; and Leiv Sandvik for invaluable statistical advice throughout the study.
Conflicts of interest
This study was funded by the Norwegian Women’s Public Health Association/the Norwegian Extra Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation through EXTRA funds, Østfold Hospital Trust, St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and the Central Norway Regional Health Authority.
About this article
Cite this article
Johannessen, H.H., Norderval, S., Stordahl, A. et al. Interview-based versus self-reported anal incontinence using St Mark’s incontinence score. Int Urogynecol J 29, 667–671 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3363-y
- Anal incontinence