Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2022 May;46(5):101900.doi:10.1016/j.clinre.2022.101900. Epub 2022 Mar 5.

C Desprez ¹, N Turmel ², C Chesnel ³, S Sheikh Ismael ⁴, M Tamiatto ³, E Tan ³, R Haddad ³, F Le Breton ³, A-M Leroi ⁵, C Hentzen ³, G Amarenco ³

Author information

¹Sorbonne Université, GRC 001, GREEN Groupe de Recherche Clinique en Neuro-Urologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, 75020 Paris, France; Rouen University Hospital, Digestive physiology Department, 76000 Rouen, France. Electronic address: charlotte-desprez@orange.fr.

²Sorbonne Université, GRC 001, GREEN Groupe de Recherche Clinique en Neuro-Urologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, 75020 Paris, France; Casanova Hospital, 93200 Saint-Denis, France.

³Sorbonne Université, GRC 001, GREEN Groupe de Recherche Clinique en Neuro-Urologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, 75020 Paris, France.

⁴Sorbonne Université, GRC 001, GREEN Groupe de Recherche Clinique en Neuro-Urologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, 75020 Paris, France; ELSAN, Clinique Le Floride, 66420 Le Barcarès, France.

⁵Rouen University Hospital, Digestive physiology Department, 76000 Rouen, France.

Abstract

Introduction: Two subtypes of fecal incontinence (FI) are defined in the literature (urge and passive FI). The pertinence of this classification is unknown due to conflicting findings and heterogeneity of definitions. However, no questionnaire is available to clearly classify patients among subtypes. The objective of the present study was to develop and validate a new tool (Fecal incontinence subtype assessment, FI-SA) in order to better classify patients among the different subtypes of FI.

Methods: A prospective monocentric study was conducted in consecutive patients with FI according to Rome IV criteria. To validate psychometric properties of the FI-SA questionnaire, a literature review and qualitative interviews were performed and discussed with an expert panel. A feasibility study was realized to assess acceptability and comprehension of items. The reproducibility was investigated in a validation study.

Results: Comprehension and acceptability were excellent in 90% of patients in the feasibility study (n = 30). Validation study (n = 100) showed a good reproducibility with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.91 and 0.89 for questions 1 and 2. Time to fill the questionnaire was 40.0 s. 98.0% patients were classified among subtypes of FI: 34.0% passive FI, 32.0% urge FI and 32.0% mixed FI.

Conclusion: FI-SA is the first questionnaire to classify patients among subtypes of FI with good psychometric characteristics and the first questionnaire introducing the concept of mixed FI. FI-SA could help to determine the pertinence of this classification of FI in the management of these patients.