| Title |
Factors associated with fecal incontinence in a nationally representative sample of diabetic women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-015-2730-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria De La Luz Nieto, Jennifer M. Wu, Catherine Matthews, William E. Whitehead, Alayne D. Markland |
| Abstract |
Fecal incontinence (FI) is a debilitating condition that significantly affects quality of life, and has been associated with multiple risk factors. Our goal was to assess the prevalence of FI among diabetic women and evaluate factors associated with FI in this population. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2005 to 2010 was used to evaluate women with diabetes mellitus and FI. FI was defined as involuntary loss of mucus, liquid, or solid stool at least monthly. Severity was evaluated using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index. Potential risk factors associated with FI were explored with weighted chi-squared statistics. Variables associated with FI in multivariable logistic regression analysis are reported with odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). Among 7,039 women, 13.6 % were diabetic, and 18.1 % of diabetic women reported FI compared to 8.4 % in the overall NHANES population (p < .001). In diabetic women, FI was associated with advancing age (OR 1.3, 95 % CI 1.1 - 1.5), depression (OR 2.0 95 % CI 0.9 - 4.5), poorer health status (OR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.2 - 3.1), urinary incontinence (OR 3.5, 95 % CI 2.1 - 5.9) and bowel movement frequency of ≥21/week (OR 4.9, 95 % CI 2.3 - 10.6) in a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for race, education level, BMI, comorbidities, prior hysterectomy, and stool consistency. FI affects one in five diabetic women and is strongly associated with high bowel movement frequency, a possible important modifiable factor that should be investigated further in prospective studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 19 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 21 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2016.
All research outputs
#8,474,037
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#870
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,259
of 278,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#13
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.