Advertisement

coloproctology

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 11–12 | Cite as

Erfassen gängige Inkontinenzscores die tätsächliche Kontinenzsituation der Patienten?

Journal Club
  • 82 Downloads

Do Scores measure right in incontinent patients?

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

G. Kolbert gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Baxter NN, Rothenberger DA, Lowry AC (2003) Measuring fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 46(12):1591–1605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36(1):77–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44(1):77–80CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paquette IM, Abodeely A, Johnson BL 3rd, Rafferty JF (2014) Quantifying patient improvement following sacral neuromodulation: is it time for a new scoring system for fecal incontinence? Dis Colon Rectum 57(10):1209–1212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, Wexner SD, Bliss D, Lowry AC (2000) Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43(1):9–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sansoni J, Hawthorne G, Fleming G, Marosszeky N (2013) The revised faecal incontinence scale: a clinical validation of a new, short measure for assessment and outcomes evaluation. Dis Colon Rectum 56(5):652–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Berlin 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.End- und Dickdarmzentrum HannoverHannoverDeutschland

Personalised recommendations