The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of faecal incontinence and associated risk factors
Abstract
Objective: To determine the prevalence of faecal incontinence in the community and evaluate identifiable risk factors. Design and setting: Cross-sectional survey using a validated questionnaire. A short version of the questionnaire was sent to 220 subjects and a long version to 770 subjects, randomly selected from western Sydney, Australia. Main outcome measures: Self-reported faecal incontinence, defined as involuntary loss of anal sphincteric control leading to unwanted release of liquid or solid faeces (not flatus) at an inappropriate time or in an inappropriate place, within the past 12 months. The long questionnaire also sought information on bowel habit and potential risk factors for faecal incontinence. Results: The response rate was 66%. The prevalence of solid or liquid faecal incontinence was 2% and 9%, respectively. The mean age of subjects with faecal incontinence was 53 years; 55% were women. After adjusting for age and sex, there was a significant association between faecal incontinence and perianal injury (P = 0.03), perianal surgery (P < 0.001), feelings of incomplete defecation (P < 0.0001), loose or watery motions (P < 0.0001) and urgency (P < 0.0001). Seven of 48 subjects with faecal incontinence reported being asked by their physician about faecal incontinence and nine of 33 reported seeking medical advice for their incontinence. Subjects with faecal incontinence perceived their health to be significantly poorer than did other subjects (P = 0.02). Conclusion: There is a high burden of faecal incontinence in the community, and the prevalence in men may be greater than is usually appreciated. Despite significant associated morbidity, most cases of faecal incontinence were unrecognised by doctors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Drossman, D. A., Li, Z., Andruzzi, E., Temple, R. D., Talley, N. J., Grant Thompson, W., Whitehead, W. E., Janssens, J., Funch-Jensen, P., Corazziari, E., et al. (1993) · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01303162 · Cited by 2,198
Self-citation
Cited by
Wexner, S. D., Coller, J. A., Devroede, G., Hull, T., McCallum, R., Chan, M., Ayscue, J. M., Shobeiri, A. S., Margolin, D., England, M., et al. (2010) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3181cf8ed0 · Cited by 351
Metadata
- Authors
- Kalantar, J. S., Howell, S., & Talley, N. J.
- Venue
- Medical Journal of Australia
- Publisher
- AMPCo
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 176
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 54-57
- ISSN
- 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
- 1326-5377
- OpenAlex
- W4318373405
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence of faecal incontinence and associated risk factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04283.x
- The paper
- Kalantar, J. S., Howell, S., & Talley, N. J. (2002). Prevalence of faecal incontinence and associated risk factors. Medical Journal of Australia. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04283.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.