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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Drossman DA, Dumitrascu DL. Rome III: New standard for functional gastrointestinal disorders. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 2006;15:237–41.
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.
Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:77–97.
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.
Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 1999;44:77–80.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-007-9157-4