Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Does the St. Mark’s Incontinence Score Reflect Patients’ Perceptions? A Review of 390 Patients

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

Purpose

The St. Mark’s incontinence score is widely used to evaluate the severity of fecal incontinence. It is unknown to what extent such scores relate to patients’ perceptions about their condition. The primary goal of this study was to assess this correlation. Secondary goals were to evaluate the relationship between different types of incontinence, age, gender, and the continence score and to assess the sensitivity of St. Mark’s incontinence score to a change in patients’ perception and outcome evaluation after treatment.

Methods

Patients’ subjective perception of bowel control (using a 0–10 scale) and St. Mark’s incontinence score for 390 patients were reviewed. Change in the score was documented for 131 patients who underwent biofeedback treatment and compared with patients’ outcome evaluation.

Results

There was a moderate correlation between patients’ perception of bowel control and the St. Mark’s incontinence score (r = −0.55; P < 0.001). The correlation was maintained, regardless of type of incontinence (r = −0.48 to −0.55), age (≤60 years: r = −0.54; >60 years: r = −0.58; P < 0.001) or gender (male: r = −0.48; female: r = −0.53; P < 0.001) of patients. St. Mark’s incontinence score was sensitive to a change in patients’ subjective evaluation after the treatment.

Conclusions

The St. Mark’s incontinence score correlates moderately well with patients’ subjective perception and is reliable regardless of the type of incontinence, patients’ age, or gender. It is suitable for the severity assessment of fecal incontinence and the evaluation of a treatment outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perry S, Shaw C, McGrother C, et al. Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community. Gut 2002;50:480–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Drossman DA, Dumitrascu DL. Rome III: New standard for functional gastrointestinal disorders. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 2006;15:237–41.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deutekom M, Dobben AC, Terra MP, et al. Clinical presentation of fecal incontinence and anorectal function: what is the relationship? Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:351–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:77–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pescatori M, Anastasio G, Bottini C, Mentasti A. New grading and scoring for anal incontinence. Evaluation of 335 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:482–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 1999;44:77–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Olopade FA, Norman A, Blake P, et al. A modified Inflammatory Bowel Disease questionnaire and the Vaizey incontinence questionnaire are simple ways to identify patients with significant gastrointestinal symptoms after pelvic radiotherapy. Br J Cancer 2005;92:1663–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Deutekom M, Terra MP, Dobben AC, et al. Selecting an outcome measure for evaluating treatment in fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48:2294–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Burchette RJ, Luber KM, Nager CW, Buckwalter JG. The use of Visual Analog Scale in urogynecologic research: a psychometric evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:165–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Byrne CM, Pager CK, Rex J, Roberts R, Solomon MJ. Assessment of quality of life in the treatment of patients with neuropathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:1431–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bakx R, Sprangers MA, Oort FJ, et al. Development and validation of a colorectal functional outcome questionnaire. Int J Colorectal Dis 2005;20:126–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gardener N, Avery K, Abrams P, Norton C. Methods of development of a symptom and quality of life assessment for bowel symptoms including anal incontinence-ICIQ-BS. Proceedings from the International Continence Society meeting [Abstract]. Montreal, Canada. Neurourol Urodynam 2005;24:558–9.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Norton Ph.D., M.A., R.N..

About this article

Cite this article

Maeda, Y., Parés, D., Norton, C. et al. Does the St. Mark’s Incontinence Score Reflect Patients’ Perceptions? A Review of 390 Patients. Dis Colon Rectum 51, 436–442 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9157-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9157-4

Key words

Navigation