This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fecal incontinence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Fecal incontinence was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 21, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Fecal incontinence received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Fecal incontinence.
|
This article contains a lot of speech in the first person (you, yourself, etc). I have fixed some of those parts, but there is still some work missing. Rbarreira 20:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I did not notice any remaining first person speech, so I removed the notice. -- Driscoll 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The following text is deleted from the article because of tone of the refnotes and because if those belong on wikipedia at all then they belong on pages more specific to the products in question. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Fecal incontinence is also a potential side-effect of medicines that prevent the absorption of dietary fats such as Orlistat and can also be caused by eating non-digestible oils or fats such as Olestra. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still must approve the switch, the agency often follows the advice of its experts. If it does, Orlistat (xenical) -- currently sold only by prescription -- could be available over-the-counter (OTC) later this year. But it's important to know that the weight loss that's typical for users of the drug -- 5 to 10 percent of total weight -- will be less than many dieters expect. And many consumers may be put off by the drug's significant gastrointestinal side effects, including flatulence, diarrhea and anal leakage.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
The Frito-Lay report states: "The anal oil leakage symptoms were observed in this study (3 to 9% incidence range above background), as well as other changes in elimination. ... Underwear spotting was statistically significant in one of two low level consumer groups at a 5% incidence above background." Despite those problems, the authors of the report concluded that olestra-containing snacks "should have a high potential for acceptance in the marketplace."
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
GlaxoSmithKline has a tip for people who decide to try Alli, the over-the-counter weight-loss drug it is launching with a multimillion-dollar advertising blitz—keep an extra pair of pants handy. That's because Alli, a lower-dose version of the prescription drug Xenical, could (cue the late-night talk-show hosts) make you soil your pants. But while Alli's most troublesome side effect, anal leakage, is sure to be good for a few laughs, millions of people who are desperate to take off weight may still decide the threat of an accident is worth it.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
CSPI2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This may also lead to F. I. (well, it's an open secret). Only thing I do not get is why this article doesn't mention alcohol in any way; of course, you can read "drugs" but most people would not call alcohol a "drug." I agree that it may be included into the "drugs" group; yet for the sake of clarity and readability, alcohol ought to be mentioned separately IMHO. -andy 77.190.52.185 ( talk) 00:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This article's definition could be interpreted as vague and imprecise. E.g. what does regular control of the bowels mean? A patient could have irregular bowels without being incontinent. Whether there is a voluntary control or not is the key factor, and we should make this clear. Rather than involuntary excretion or leaking (whats the difference?) being common features, they are the defining features imo. Some other definitions I have read of FI I feel are better:
"the inability to control feces and to expel it at a proper place and at a proper time" "the inability to prevent involuntary loss of bowel content" "recurrent uncontrolled passage of fecal material in an individual with a developmental age of at least 4 years" tepi ( talk) 19:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Currently the article reads: "Another study among forty anoreceptive homosexual men and ten non-anoreceptive heterosexual men found a very significant increase in fecal incontinence (fourteen, or 35% amongst the anoreceptive men, and one, or 10% in the non-anoreceptive sample) amongst the anoreceptive sample.[12]"
Upon reading the study, "This study has revealed an excess of minor anal incontinence amongst anoreceptive homosexual men. Over a third of AR subjects reported some degree of anal incontinence or urgency of defaecation."
I feel the wording "very significant" is misleading. Either something is statistically significant or it is not. Furthermore, this is a very small cohort study and therefore its findings need considered with that in mind. tepi ( talk) 19:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Apart from changing the order in which the studies are mentioned, how else to improve the wording in the article? The acclimatization refers to physiological muscular acclimatisation to anorectal manipulation or a psychological difference in the way the groups reacted to manometry? tepi ( talk) 03:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
p = 0.05 ( talk) 00:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jmh649 ( talk · contribs) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Collapse older status
| ||
---|---|---|
With Doc's permission, I'm going to help out to try to finish up and close out this GA review.
Did more tonight... will probably take a few more nights to get through the first thorough read. Generally looking good, however the article has a tendency to use what looks more like shorthand notes rather than spelling things out completely in words. This is mentioned in tonight's notes. Started to do more tonight and I feel the article needs some more general reorganization, I am seeing a lot of cases where I'm reading sections and finding content I am not expecting to find in that section...
Tepi, looking at it more tonight... Some questions about the Classification section:
So tonight's request to you is to bring the Classification section in line with
Medical classification. I am actually unsure of where all these different classifications are coming from: leakage character, age, gender... I'm expecting to look at one source document and see a list of these classification types but I'm not seeing it. Where did this list of classifications come from, did you develop it yourself by combining what was found in several sources? Thanks....
Tepi, yes, that's the organization we need to be heading toward. For the source, I'll send you an email so that you can have my email address, will that work? We'll figure out something.
Tepi, OK now that I have my hands on Wolff we can move this forward, it's a great resource. The reconfiguration you did earlier today was good. Here's what has to happen next:
and appropriate descriptions of each. Let's try that...
( ←) The concept of "differential diagnosis" of symptoms is used in different ways: it could mean both alternative but similar symptoms ("the differential of angina could be oesophageal spasm"), but technically it should refer to the possible causes for these symptoms ("the differential of chest pain is angina, oesophageal spasm, acid reflux, costochondritis etc"). I'd say an article would need to cover both aspects to be complete. JFW | T@lk 13:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed a bunch more sources and there are some issues to address, please check out the Sourcing section. |
Review of all sources now complete, notes are in the Sources table. Plan to go over article prose again over next few. Also, Tepi, instead of only making notes here on the GA review page I have also made notes in-article about things that need sources, etc.
Zad
68
03:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Tepi - Commenting on sourcing fixes tonight, a little more copyediting; stuff to work on still!
Zad
68
02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Tepi and I had a discussion and we are in agreement not to list the article for GA at this time. It's come quite a good way towards GA, but there's still some work to do and Tepi will keep working on it in his own time.
Zad
68
03:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | References section exists | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Will need a review after the sourcing issues noted in the sources table are remedied | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Some areas where article content should be double-checked against sources. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Infobox image is normal function and does not depict FI, I know you're working on getting permission for a FI one, but the one that's there is adequate | |
7. Overall assessment. | Not listed for GA at this time while Tepi continues work on it |
Note -- the number in parentheses before each item corresponds with the numbering of the GA requirement listed in the GA Table above.
Please could you go into more detail about the undue tag on the functional FI section and the comment in the sourcing table about the Rome criteria ref not being notable? Lesion ( talk) 13:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sources table
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In this table:
|
Zad
68
22:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Archived previous review items from Doc James and Biosthmors, mostly addressed, anything not addressed brought foward
|
---|
Review started by Doc JamesInitial comments
This is a start. While write more once these are addressed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Primary sources in this articleBy my count, there are 38/61 references that are primary. Having said that:
I guess there is nothing to do but look at how each primary is used, and see if it can be replaced by a secondary or assess whether it is needed at all. lesion ( talk) 19:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Lead
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Classification
Differential diagnosisWould be interesting to know how often different surgeries cause FI. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Treatment
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Additional sectionsWhat about section on history of the disease and it treatment? And a section on society and culture which could go into greater depth about economics and stigma. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
TENSI am not seeing this as properly reflecting the sources. We should also state the main conclusions first:
What do you think about the following? Details on how TENS works can be found in the subarticle on the topic.
Medications
Reference densityA number of sentences do not have direct references after them. For example in the first section we have
Does that file ref support all the sentences before it? And if so maybe we can add <!--<ref name="ASCRS core subjects FI" /></blockquote> --> after each one Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC) We also have large blocks of text that are unreferenced such as
and
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
DelaySorry for the delay. I am currently on the road. Will finish up the review next week. One thing is we write FI a lot. As the article is about this topic it can often just be implied rather than stated much of the time. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC) A few more
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
From Biosthmors
MoreEncyclopedic?In differential diagnosis, there is this:The source it is cited to is PMID 20011265, from 2004. Aside from WP:MEDDATE being a concern, since it is from 2004, why say all this to essentially say not much? Biosthmors ( talk) 22:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Does pelvic floor exercises work?We have this paragraph
I am reading it and want to know if pelvic floor exercises are useful for FI. I come to this bit after reading a bunch of sentences which say little about effectiveness "therefore be of benefit in FI " but it is unreferenced. I learn that it is good for urinary incontincece but that is not what this section should be about. I finally come to the conclusions at the end "A systematic review on the efficacy of anal sphincter exercises stated that there is a suggestion that sphincter exercises may have a therapeutic effect, but this is not certain. The researchers were unable to make any firm conclusions due to lack of available strong evidence" This should go first and most of the rest should be shortened / moved to the article on pelvic floor exercises. We also just state the facts of the best available literature. Rather than "A systematic review on the efficacy of anal sphincter exercises stated that there is a suggestion that sphincter exercises may have a therapeutic effect, but this is not certain. The researchers were unable to make any firm conclusions due to lack of available strong evidence" How about "The role of pelvic floor exercises in fecal incontinence is poorly determined. While there may be some benefit they appear less useful than implanted sacral nerve stimulators." With the Cochrane review supporting both. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Images in the leadWould be good to move one of the images to the lead. What about the stylized diagram? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The first I think is Gray's, so it's already uploaded. I prefer the second image as it is relevant to FI and not just a diagram of normal anatomy. Not sure if they would release it into public domain for this purpose... lesion ( talk) 14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)History sectionWhich refs support which line of text? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Same for the prognosis section. Does ref 5 support all the sentences in question? If so could you add <!--<ref name="NICE guidelines" /> --> This will keep people from coming and adding cn tags. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC) |
I am removing this source because it is primary and not significantly contributing to the article. Please feel free to re-add this info if it can be supported with a secondary source. lesion ( talk) 15:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Surely "FL generally concerns disorders of IAS function ..." should read, "FI generally concerns disorders of IAS function ...", shouldn't it? Dawright12 ( talk) 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks that the bones are green ... Why are the colours in the diagram this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.83.249 ( talk) 19:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
External sphincters treatment - exercises most effective if not the only effective from www.proctoexercises.eu by John Kowalski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.178.119 ( talk) 08:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this really needed? Added May 2017. Consider reversal. Genehisthome ( talk) 05:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere in this article I see the text "anal sex", "anal intercourse", or "homosexual". Some argue that anal penetration (by penis or sex toy) eventually causes the sphincter muscles to become weakened or inoperative: "They postulate that anal sex may simply dilate and stretch the anal sphincter muscle and eventually cause damage to the muscles themselves, and/or cause sensory nerve damage leading to loss of sphincter sensation and control". [4] I suggest adding information to the "Causes" section on anal penetration causing fecal incompetence. -- NoToleranceForIntolerance ( talk) 10:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Rare causes of traumatic injury to the anal sphincters include military or traffic accidents complicated by pelvic fractures, spine injuries or perineal lacerations, insertion of foreign bodies in the rectum, and sexual abuse.[2]
Currently Anal incontinence redirects to the Fecal incontinence article. I edited the first to be its own page, see this revision, because there is an actual difference according to the source included. The revision was undone because to some AI and FI are the same. This is what the source has to say:
"Anal incontinence (AI) may be defined as any involuntary loss of stool or gas via the anus.1 Specifically, feacal incontinence (FI) is loss of stool, wheter liquid or solid."
There are subjects with flatulance incontinence without fecal incontinence. Those with flatulance incontinence will not identify themselves with fecal incontinence, therfor it is import differentiate between anal incontinence, fecal incontinence and flatulance incontinence.
Currently there is a draft for fecal body odor and I wanted to redirected 'flatulance incontinence' to this article. Maybe splitting the 'fecal body odor' and 'flatulance incontinence' articles in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candide124 ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) Cite error: The named reference "Hosker 2007" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
ASCRS core subjects FI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fecal incontinence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Fecal incontinence was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 21, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Fecal incontinence received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Fecal incontinence.
|
This article contains a lot of speech in the first person (you, yourself, etc). I have fixed some of those parts, but there is still some work missing. Rbarreira 20:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I did not notice any remaining first person speech, so I removed the notice. -- Driscoll 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The following text is deleted from the article because of tone of the refnotes and because if those belong on wikipedia at all then they belong on pages more specific to the products in question. -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Fecal incontinence is also a potential side-effect of medicines that prevent the absorption of dietary fats such as Orlistat and can also be caused by eating non-digestible oils or fats such as Olestra. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still must approve the switch, the agency often follows the advice of its experts. If it does, Orlistat (xenical) -- currently sold only by prescription -- could be available over-the-counter (OTC) later this year. But it's important to know that the weight loss that's typical for users of the drug -- 5 to 10 percent of total weight -- will be less than many dieters expect. And many consumers may be put off by the drug's significant gastrointestinal side effects, including flatulence, diarrhea and anal leakage.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
The Frito-Lay report states: "The anal oil leakage symptoms were observed in this study (3 to 9% incidence range above background), as well as other changes in elimination. ... Underwear spotting was statistically significant in one of two low level consumer groups at a 5% incidence above background." Despite those problems, the authors of the report concluded that olestra-containing snacks "should have a high potential for acceptance in the marketplace."
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
GlaxoSmithKline has a tip for people who decide to try Alli, the over-the-counter weight-loss drug it is launching with a multimillion-dollar advertising blitz—keep an extra pair of pants handy. That's because Alli, a lower-dose version of the prescription drug Xenical, could (cue the late-night talk-show hosts) make you soil your pants. But while Alli's most troublesome side effect, anal leakage, is sure to be good for a few laughs, millions of people who are desperate to take off weight may still decide the threat of an accident is worth it.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
CSPI2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This may also lead to F. I. (well, it's an open secret). Only thing I do not get is why this article doesn't mention alcohol in any way; of course, you can read "drugs" but most people would not call alcohol a "drug." I agree that it may be included into the "drugs" group; yet for the sake of clarity and readability, alcohol ought to be mentioned separately IMHO. -andy 77.190.52.185 ( talk) 00:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This article's definition could be interpreted as vague and imprecise. E.g. what does regular control of the bowels mean? A patient could have irregular bowels without being incontinent. Whether there is a voluntary control or not is the key factor, and we should make this clear. Rather than involuntary excretion or leaking (whats the difference?) being common features, they are the defining features imo. Some other definitions I have read of FI I feel are better:
"the inability to control feces and to expel it at a proper place and at a proper time" "the inability to prevent involuntary loss of bowel content" "recurrent uncontrolled passage of fecal material in an individual with a developmental age of at least 4 years" tepi ( talk) 19:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Currently the article reads: "Another study among forty anoreceptive homosexual men and ten non-anoreceptive heterosexual men found a very significant increase in fecal incontinence (fourteen, or 35% amongst the anoreceptive men, and one, or 10% in the non-anoreceptive sample) amongst the anoreceptive sample.[12]"
Upon reading the study, "This study has revealed an excess of minor anal incontinence amongst anoreceptive homosexual men. Over a third of AR subjects reported some degree of anal incontinence or urgency of defaecation."
I feel the wording "very significant" is misleading. Either something is statistically significant or it is not. Furthermore, this is a very small cohort study and therefore its findings need considered with that in mind. tepi ( talk) 19:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Apart from changing the order in which the studies are mentioned, how else to improve the wording in the article? The acclimatization refers to physiological muscular acclimatisation to anorectal manipulation or a psychological difference in the way the groups reacted to manometry? tepi ( talk) 03:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
p = 0.05 ( talk) 00:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jmh649 ( talk · contribs) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Collapse older status
| ||
---|---|---|
With Doc's permission, I'm going to help out to try to finish up and close out this GA review.
Did more tonight... will probably take a few more nights to get through the first thorough read. Generally looking good, however the article has a tendency to use what looks more like shorthand notes rather than spelling things out completely in words. This is mentioned in tonight's notes. Started to do more tonight and I feel the article needs some more general reorganization, I am seeing a lot of cases where I'm reading sections and finding content I am not expecting to find in that section...
Tepi, looking at it more tonight... Some questions about the Classification section:
So tonight's request to you is to bring the Classification section in line with
Medical classification. I am actually unsure of where all these different classifications are coming from: leakage character, age, gender... I'm expecting to look at one source document and see a list of these classification types but I'm not seeing it. Where did this list of classifications come from, did you develop it yourself by combining what was found in several sources? Thanks....
Tepi, yes, that's the organization we need to be heading toward. For the source, I'll send you an email so that you can have my email address, will that work? We'll figure out something.
Tepi, OK now that I have my hands on Wolff we can move this forward, it's a great resource. The reconfiguration you did earlier today was good. Here's what has to happen next:
and appropriate descriptions of each. Let's try that...
( ←) The concept of "differential diagnosis" of symptoms is used in different ways: it could mean both alternative but similar symptoms ("the differential of angina could be oesophageal spasm"), but technically it should refer to the possible causes for these symptoms ("the differential of chest pain is angina, oesophageal spasm, acid reflux, costochondritis etc"). I'd say an article would need to cover both aspects to be complete. JFW | T@lk 13:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed a bunch more sources and there are some issues to address, please check out the Sourcing section. |
Review of all sources now complete, notes are in the Sources table. Plan to go over article prose again over next few. Also, Tepi, instead of only making notes here on the GA review page I have also made notes in-article about things that need sources, etc.
Zad
68
03:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Tepi - Commenting on sourcing fixes tonight, a little more copyediting; stuff to work on still!
Zad
68
02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Tepi and I had a discussion and we are in agreement not to list the article for GA at this time. It's come quite a good way towards GA, but there's still some work to do and Tepi will keep working on it in his own time.
Zad
68
03:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
00:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | References section exists | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Will need a review after the sourcing issues noted in the sources table are remedied | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Some areas where article content should be double-checked against sources. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Infobox image is normal function and does not depict FI, I know you're working on getting permission for a FI one, but the one that's there is adequate | |
7. Overall assessment. | Not listed for GA at this time while Tepi continues work on it |
Note -- the number in parentheses before each item corresponds with the numbering of the GA requirement listed in the GA Table above.
Please could you go into more detail about the undue tag on the functional FI section and the comment in the sourcing table about the Rome criteria ref not being notable? Lesion ( talk) 13:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sources table
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In this table:
|
Zad
68
22:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Archived previous review items from Doc James and Biosthmors, mostly addressed, anything not addressed brought foward
|
---|
Review started by Doc JamesInitial comments
This is a start. While write more once these are addressed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Primary sources in this articleBy my count, there are 38/61 references that are primary. Having said that:
I guess there is nothing to do but look at how each primary is used, and see if it can be replaced by a secondary or assess whether it is needed at all. lesion ( talk) 19:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Lead
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Classification
Differential diagnosisWould be interesting to know how often different surgeries cause FI. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Treatment
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Additional sectionsWhat about section on history of the disease and it treatment? And a section on society and culture which could go into greater depth about economics and stigma. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
TENSI am not seeing this as properly reflecting the sources. We should also state the main conclusions first:
What do you think about the following? Details on how TENS works can be found in the subarticle on the topic.
Medications
Reference densityA number of sentences do not have direct references after them. For example in the first section we have
Does that file ref support all the sentences before it? And if so maybe we can add <!--<ref name="ASCRS core subjects FI" /></blockquote> --> after each one Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC) We also have large blocks of text that are unreferenced such as
and
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
DelaySorry for the delay. I am currently on the road. Will finish up the review next week. One thing is we write FI a lot. As the article is about this topic it can often just be implied rather than stated much of the time. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC) A few more
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
From Biosthmors
MoreEncyclopedic?In differential diagnosis, there is this:The source it is cited to is PMID 20011265, from 2004. Aside from WP:MEDDATE being a concern, since it is from 2004, why say all this to essentially say not much? Biosthmors ( talk) 22:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Does pelvic floor exercises work?We have this paragraph
I am reading it and want to know if pelvic floor exercises are useful for FI. I come to this bit after reading a bunch of sentences which say little about effectiveness "therefore be of benefit in FI " but it is unreferenced. I learn that it is good for urinary incontincece but that is not what this section should be about. I finally come to the conclusions at the end "A systematic review on the efficacy of anal sphincter exercises stated that there is a suggestion that sphincter exercises may have a therapeutic effect, but this is not certain. The researchers were unable to make any firm conclusions due to lack of available strong evidence" This should go first and most of the rest should be shortened / moved to the article on pelvic floor exercises. We also just state the facts of the best available literature. Rather than "A systematic review on the efficacy of anal sphincter exercises stated that there is a suggestion that sphincter exercises may have a therapeutic effect, but this is not certain. The researchers were unable to make any firm conclusions due to lack of available strong evidence" How about "The role of pelvic floor exercises in fecal incontinence is poorly determined. While there may be some benefit they appear less useful than implanted sacral nerve stimulators." With the Cochrane review supporting both. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Images in the leadWould be good to move one of the images to the lead. What about the stylized diagram? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The first I think is Gray's, so it's already uploaded. I prefer the second image as it is relevant to FI and not just a diagram of normal anatomy. Not sure if they would release it into public domain for this purpose... lesion ( talk) 14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)History sectionWhich refs support which line of text? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Same for the prognosis section. Does ref 5 support all the sentences in question? If so could you add <!--<ref name="NICE guidelines" /> --> This will keep people from coming and adding cn tags. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC) |
I am removing this source because it is primary and not significantly contributing to the article. Please feel free to re-add this info if it can be supported with a secondary source. lesion ( talk) 15:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Surely "FL generally concerns disorders of IAS function ..." should read, "FI generally concerns disorders of IAS function ...", shouldn't it? Dawright12 ( talk) 17:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks that the bones are green ... Why are the colours in the diagram this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.83.249 ( talk) 19:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
External sphincters treatment - exercises most effective if not the only effective from www.proctoexercises.eu by John Kowalski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.187.178.119 ( talk) 08:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this really needed? Added May 2017. Consider reversal. Genehisthome ( talk) 05:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere in this article I see the text "anal sex", "anal intercourse", or "homosexual". Some argue that anal penetration (by penis or sex toy) eventually causes the sphincter muscles to become weakened or inoperative: "They postulate that anal sex may simply dilate and stretch the anal sphincter muscle and eventually cause damage to the muscles themselves, and/or cause sensory nerve damage leading to loss of sphincter sensation and control". [4] I suggest adding information to the "Causes" section on anal penetration causing fecal incompetence. -- NoToleranceForIntolerance ( talk) 10:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Rare causes of traumatic injury to the anal sphincters include military or traffic accidents complicated by pelvic fractures, spine injuries or perineal lacerations, insertion of foreign bodies in the rectum, and sexual abuse.[2]
Currently Anal incontinence redirects to the Fecal incontinence article. I edited the first to be its own page, see this revision, because there is an actual difference according to the source included. The revision was undone because to some AI and FI are the same. This is what the source has to say:
"Anal incontinence (AI) may be defined as any involuntary loss of stool or gas via the anus.1 Specifically, feacal incontinence (FI) is loss of stool, wheter liquid or solid."
There are subjects with flatulance incontinence without fecal incontinence. Those with flatulance incontinence will not identify themselves with fecal incontinence, therfor it is import differentiate between anal incontinence, fecal incontinence and flatulance incontinence.
Currently there is a draft for fecal body odor and I wanted to redirected 'flatulance incontinence' to this article. Maybe splitting the 'fecal body odor' and 'flatulance incontinence' articles in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candide124 ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) Cite error: The named reference "Hosker 2007" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
ASCRS core subjects FI
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).