Prevalence of faecal incontinence and its related factors among patients in a Malaysian academic setting

  • April C Roslani1Email author,

    Affiliated with

    • Rajeshwary Ramakrishnan1,

      Affiliated with

      • Soraya Azmi2, 3,

        Affiliated with

        • Daryl J Arapoc3 and

          Affiliated with

          • Adrian Goh2, 3

            Affiliated with

            BMC Gastroenterology201414:95

            DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-14-95

            Received: 18 January 2013

            Accepted: 7 May 2014

            Published: 18 May 2014

            Abstract

            Background

            Prevalence data is essential for planning of healthcare services. The prevalence of faecal incontinence (FI) varies worldwide, and in Malaysia is not known. We sought to estimate its prevalence among patients with various conditions in a Malaysian academic setting.

            Method

            A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among a convenience sample of adult patients and relatives who visited the Obstetrics and Gynaecology and General Surgery Clinics of University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) from June 2009 to February 2010. Data collected included patient demographics and pre-existing medical conditions known to be FI risk factors. Severity of FI was assessed using the Wexner Continence Scale (WCS).

            Results

            Among the 1000 subjects recruited into the study, 760 (76%) were female and the median age was 38 years with an inter-quartile range of 24 years. The prevalence of FI among the study subjects was found to be 8.3%. Among them, 63 subjects (75.9%) were determined to have mild FI as measured by the WCS. The proportions of patients with moderate and severe FI were 18.3% and 6.0%, respectively. FI was found to be significantly associated with older age, presence of diabetes mellitus and increased duration of defaecation. There was no statistically significant association between FI and sex, defaecation frequency, or history of surgery.

            Conclusion

            FI in our setting is prevalent enough to warrant targeted healthcare interventions, including the need to improve general public awareness of the condition in order to counter social stigma and embarrassment that may be faced by patients.

            Keywords

            Faecal incontinence Prevalence Sphincter defects Soiling Constipation

            Background

            Faecal incontinence (FI) is defined as inappropriate or involuntary loss of flatus, liquid and stool with up to half of patients having rectal hypersensitivity and increased stool frequency and urgency [1]. This condition is associated with aging and loss-of-function or damage of anal sphincters as a result of childbirth and anal surgery [2, 3]. FI interferes with many activities of daily living including sleep, work and social activities. It can be distressing, embarrassing and lead to social isolation, low self-esteem, reduced intimacy and also anxiety and depression [4, 5]. FI has been referred to as the ‘silent affliction’ of ‘unvoiced symptoms’ [6]. Owing to the reluctance of patients to come forward, its reported prevalence tends to be underestimated and even unrecognized in many cases. Even though FI is estimated from previous studies to affect about 10% of the community, only a small minority seek medical attention [7, 8]. Despite the anticipated difficulties of identifying patients for a study, we felt that attempting to understand the occurrence of the condition is important to better help patients who are faced with this socially challenging condition.

            Earlier population based studies have tended to focus on elderly patients [9, 10]. More recent studies have highlighted the problem of FI among women [11, 12], although it should be noted that FI is a significant health issue among men as well [2, 13]. Few studies have been conducted on the prevalence of FI among Asian populations, and the available studies have reported varying FI prevalence rates. A 1997 study, among a randomly selected sample of Japanese patients aged above 64 years, reported FI prevalence of 8.7% among males and 6.6% among females respectively [14] while a 2003 study of 1253 Taiwanese females indicated an FI prevalence rate of 2.8% [15]. Studies from China and Korea indicated FI prevalence rates of 1.3% among Chinese women in Beijing and 6.4% among Koreans of both sexes [16, 17]. Similarly, studies from the Middle East have reported varying rates of FI prevalence. A 2001 study of 450 females from the United Arab Emirates reported an FI prevalence of 11.3% in [18] while a study of 596 premenopausal Qatari women reported a prevalence rate of 10.4% [19]. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no published information on the prevalence of FI in Malaysia, which is unique in the multi-racial composition of its population.

            In order to shed some light on FI among patients in a Malaysian setting, we conducted a survey to determine the prevalence, patient characteristics and risk factors of FI as well as their treatment seeking behaviour. This paper focuses on the first three issues. Details of treatment seeking behaviour will be reported separately.

            Method

            A survey was conducted between June 2009 and February 2010 at the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC), an academic hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Based on convenience sampling, survey subjects were recruited among patients seeking treatment at the General Surgical (GS), Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) and Antenatal specialist outpatient clinics as well as their accompanying relatives. Subjects were eligible for inclusion into the study if they were aged more than 18 years old and were of Malaysian nationality. The study had a targeted sample size of 1000 respondents.

            Subjects who provided verbal consent to participate in the study were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was specifically designed and pre-tested for this study and included screening questions on demographics, FI symptoms, surgical history and chronic illness. Subjects who reported FI were then asked additional questions regarding the severity of their condition and their treatment-seeking behaviour.

            Severity of FI was assessed based on the Wexner Continence Scale (WCS) [20]. The WCS determines severity according to symptoms of incontinence to solid, liquid or gas, wearing of pads and lifestyle alteration. Each WCS domain contains five levels of severity from 0 (never) to 4 (always). The total WCS score ranges from zero (no incontinence) to 20 (complete incontinence). Within the WCS, FI severity is divided into mild (1–4), moderate (5–8) and severe (more than 9) [21].

            For the purpose of analysis, numerical variables were transformed into categorical variables and evaluated using percentages. Results were further analysed using the chi-square test with means, medians, standard deviations and inter-quartile ranges (IQR) obtained from descriptive statistical analysis. Analysis was performed using Stata SE version 11.2 (College Station, TX).

            Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) on 20th February 2008 with the document approval number 638.1.

            Results

            One thousand subjects comprising of patients and their relatives were recruited to the study. The median age of subjects was 38 years (IQR 24) of whom 76% were female as shown in Table 1. There was a predominance of Malay patients (59.5%), followed by Chinese (20.0%), Indian (17.4%) and patients from other ethnicities (3.1%). Chronic diseases present among 238 (23.8%) of the study subjects included diabetes mellitus (10.8%), hypertension (17.7%), hypercholesterolemia (7.4%) and ischaemic heart disease (2.4%). Two hundred and eighty five (28.5%) of the recruited subjects reported having undergone prior surgery, of whom 1.5% reported having had previous pelvic, perineal or anorectal surgery.
            Table 1

            Sample characteristics

            Characteristic

            N

            (%)

            All subjects, N

            1000

            (100%)

            Age, median (IQR)

            38

            (24)

            Female, n(%)

            760

            (76%)

            Ethnicity, n(%)

            200

             

            Chinese

            174

            (20.0%)

            Indian

            595

            (17.4%)

            Malay

            31

            (59.5%)

            Other

            83

            (3.1%)

            Faecal Incontinence

            238

            (8.3%)

            Chronic disease, n(%)

            108

            (23.8%)

            Diabetes mellitus

            177

            (10.8%)

            Hypertension

            74

            (17.7%)

            Hypercholesterolemia

            24

            (7.4%)

            Ischaemic heart disease

            285

            (2.4%)

            Previous operation, n(%)

            15

            (28.5%)

            Pelvic, perineal or anorectal operation

            270

            (1.5%)

            Other operation

             

            (27%)

            Defaecation frequency, n(%)

              

            1–7 times a week

            657

            (65.7%)

            8–15 times a week

            244

            (24.4%)

            16–21 times a week

            73

            (7.3%)

            More than 22 times a week

            26

            (2.6%)

            Defaecation duration, n(%)

              

            1–5 minutes

            547

            (54.7%)

            6–10 minutes

            291

            (29.1%)

            11–15 minutes

            89

            (8.9%)

            More than 15 minutes

            73

            (7.3%)

            Note: ^Total is 999 as one subject had missing data.

            Most of the subjects (65.7%) had a defaecation frequency of 1–7 times per week, while 24.4% and 7.3% of subjects had a defaecation frequency of 8–15 times and 16–21 times, respectively. Twenty six (2.6%) of the subjects reported a frequency of more than 22 times per week. As for the duration of defaecation, 54.7% of subjects reported a defaecation duration of 1–5 minutes, 29.1% reported duration of 6–10 minutes, and 8.9% and 7.3% reported durations of 11–15 minutes and more than 15 minutes respectively as shown in Table 1.

            Eighty three (8.3%) subjects reported having experienced some form of faecal incontinence as shown in Table 2. The rate of FI was equal between males and females. The median age among the subjects who reported FI was 47 years with an IQR of 28 years. Although the males with FI were older, the age difference between sexes was not statistically significant (52.6 vs. 46.3 years, p = 0.146). Assessed by the WCS, 76% of FI subjects had mild FI (WCS score less than 5) compared to 18% who had moderate FI (WCS score range from 5 to 8) and 6% who had severe FI (WCS score above 8) as shown in Figure 1.
            Table 2

            Relationship between demographic and clinical factors with the presence of faecal incontinence

            Demographic and Clinical factors

            Survey sample, N

            Proportion of patients with FI, n (%)

            Proportion of patient without FI, n (%)

            p value

            All patients with FI

            1000

            83(8.3)

            917(91.7)

             

            Age groups, Median (IQR)

            38(24)

            47(28)

            37(24)

            <0.001

            15–24 years

            59

            3(5.1)

            56(94.9)

            25–44 years

            532

            32(6.0)

            500(94.0)

            45–64 years

            318

            31(9.7)

            287(90.3)

            More than 65 years

            91

            17(18.7)

            74(81.3)

            Sex

               

            0.983

            Male

            240

            20(8.3)

            220(91.7)

            Female

            760

            63(8.3)

            697(91.7)

            Ethnicity

               

            0.525

            Chinese

            200

            21(10.5)

            179(89.5)

            Indian

            595

            44(7.4)

            551(92.6)

            Malay

            174

            16(9.2)

            158(90.8)

            Other

            31

            2(6.5)

            29(93.5)

            Chronic disease

               

            0.158

            Yes

            238

            25(10.5)

            213(89.5)

            No

            762

            58(7.6)

            704(92.4)

            Diabetes mellitus

               

            0.026

            Yes

            108

            15(13.9)

            93(86.1)

            No

            892

            68(7.6)

            824(92.4)

            Hypertension

               

            0.323

            Yes

            177

            18(10.2)

            159(89.8)

            No

            822

            65(7.9)

            757(92.1)

            Hypercholesterolemia

               

            0.617

            Yes

            74

            5(6.8)

            69(93.2)

            No

            926

            78(8.4)

            848(91.6)

            Ischaemic heart disease

               

            0.133

            Yes

            24

            4(16.7%)

            20(83.3%)

            No

            975

            79(8.1%)

            896(91.9%)

            Previous operation

               

            0.068

            Pelvic, perineal or anorectal operation

            141

            15(10.6%)

            126(89.4%)

            Other operation

            144

            7(4.9%)

            137(95.1%)

            No previous operation

            715

            61(8.5%)

            654(91.5%)

            Defaecation frequency

               

            0.571

            1–7 times a week

            657

            55(8.4%)

            602(91.6%)

            8–15 times a week

            244

            19(7.8%)

            225(92.2%)

            16–21 times a week

            73

            5(6.9%)

            68(93.1%)

            More than 22 times a week

            26

            4(15.4%)

            22(84.6%)

            Defaecation duration

               

            0.001

            1–5 minutes

            547

            38(7.0%)

            509(93.0%)

            6–10 minutes

            291

            18(6.2%)

            273(93.8%)

            11–15 minutes

            89

            14(15.7%)

            75(84.3%)

            More than 15 minutes

            73

            13(17.8%)

            60(82.2%)

             

            Note: p value derived from χ2 test.

            http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-230X-14-95/MediaObjects/12876_2013_1117_Fig1_HTML.jpg
            Figure 1

            Severity of faecal incontinence as assessed by the Wexner Continence Scale.

            The prevalence of FI was significantly associated with older age, longer defaecation duration and diabetes mellitus (p < 0.05) as seen in Table 2. FI was found in 18.7% of subjects aged more than 65 years, compared to 9.7% among those aged 45 to 64 years, 6.0% among 24 to 44 year olds and 5.1% among subjects aged 18 to 24 years. The difference in FI rates was highly significant between age groups (p < 0.001). FI was also found to be associated with increased duration of defaecation with a large proportion of patients with FI reporting longer duration of defaecation. FI was significantly associated with the presence of diabetes mellitus (13.9% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.026). No statistical significant relationship was observed between FI and gender (p = 0.983), ethnicity (p = 0.525), weekly defaecation frequency (p = 0.571) or previous operation (p = 0.068).

            Discussion

            Our study found that the prevalence of FI was 8.3% among the convenience sample of 1000 patients. This is similar to the findings of some studies and somewhat higher than reported by others as shown in Table 3. The prevalence reported in this study is similar to that reported in Japan [14] and Korea [17] and slightly less than that reported in in UAE [18] or Qatar [19]. There have been, to our knowledge, no previous studies on the prevalence of faecal incontinence in Malaysia. However, another study reported urinary incontinence rate of 9.9% among the elderly in a rural community in Malaysia [22].
            Table 3

            International comparison of the prevalence of faecal incontinence

            Country

            Author, year

            Sample description

            Sample size

            Age Range (years)

            Age (years)

             
                 

            FI and Non-FI

            FI

            FI Prevalence (%)

                 

            Mean

            Median

            Mean

            Median

            Female

            Male

            Both

            Japan

            Nakanishi, 1997 [14]

            Elderly recruited from Osaka

            1473

            ≥65

            NA

            NA

            NA

            NA

            6.6

            8.7

            7.65

            UAE

            Rizk, 2001 [18]

            Multiparous females recruited from one medical facility

            450

            ≥20

              

            37.9 ± 13.2

             

            11.3

              

            Taiwan

            Chen, 2003 [15]

            Community survey among women in Central Taiwan

            1253

            ≥20

            43.2 ± 15.1

               

            2.8

              

            Qatar

            Bener, 2008 [19]

            Women visiting primary health care clinics

            596

            40–48

              

            45.0 ± 0.9

             

            10.4

              

            China

            Ge, 2010 [16]

            Women in 6 districts of Beijing

            3058

            20–79

            48 ± 16

             

            63 ± 13

             

            1.28

              

            Korea

            Kang, 2012 [17]

            Patients who have undergone medical check‒up from one medical facility

            1149

            20–82

            44.8 ± 10.2

             

            49.0 ± 10.6

             

            6.8

            6.2

            6.4

            Malaysia (present study)

            Roslani, 2013

            Single site, patients and relatives visiting Obstetrics and Gynaecology and General Surgery Clinics

            1000

            18-84

             

            38(24)

              

            8.3

            8.3

            8.3

            The wide age range for the selection criteria in our study was similar to several previous studies from UAE, Taiwan, China and Korea (Table 3). The exceptions were a study conducted in Japan in people aged older than 65 years, and another study in Qatar which only included women aged 40 to 48 years old. The median age in our overall study population was 38 (IQR 24) years old. This was slightly younger, albeit with a wide interquartile range, than the means found in other studies. The median age of patients with FI in our study was 47 years old (IQR 28). This is similar to the Korean study by Kang et al. that included male and female patients attending medical check-up at a health facility with a study population age range of 20 to 82 years old, their mean age was 44.8 (±10.2) years old. Kang reported a mean age of 49 (±10.6) years old among FI patients, and an FI prevalence of 6.4%. Other studies in our literature review, focused only on FI among women, reported mean ages of FI patients ranging from 37.9 to 63 years old.

            Like several other studies, our study found associations between FI and increasing age, defaecation frequency and diabetes mellitus. Older age has been consistently associated with an increased risk of FI [23]. Kang reported higher prevalence of FI among older age groups (>50 years old) compared to younger groups (<50 years old) with FI prevalence increase gradually with age (10.4% vs. 4.9%, p < 0.001) [17]. Similarly, a previous study from Beijing (China), reported that the mean age of women who had FI was significantly higher compared to the mean age of those without FI (63 vs. 48, p < 0.001) [16].

            In our study, FI rates are found to be equal at 8.3% for both males and females. Although one may expect to see a difference in prevalence between male and female patients, our study did not show such an association. The lack of a statistically significant difference in FI rates between genders may have been be due to the small number of positive cases relative to the total sample population. Furthermore, there was a limited number of males, approximately a quarter of the sample size. The US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of 2005–2006 found no significant difference in FI between women and men (8.9% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.31) [24]. This was also found in other US studies [2, 25], as well as studies for Netherlands [26] and Korea [17]. A study done in Japan among the elderly showed higher prevalence among the women [14].

            FI not only occurs in elderly people, but also in patients who have undergone surgery that can affect the excretory organs and related nerves [27, 28]. An Australian study reported a significant relationship between FI and episiotomy forceps delivery, perineal tears and hysterectomy in women [28]. In a study of asymptomatic American women, Fox and colleagues reported an association between aging and reduced anorectal function and suggested that aging plays a part in declining anorectal function and may worsen effects of any earlier damage [29]. The present study did not find surgical history to be a significant risk factor although this could be due to inadequate surgical history obtained from our subjects.

            Constipation is also one of the significant risk factors related to FI. A previous study among Norwegian women showed that the prevalence of FI increased in women who have chronic constipation compared to those who did not (3.8%, 95% CI 2.8-4.7 vs. 2.9%, 95% CI 2.7-3.2) [30]. Similarly, in a recent study conducted in the USA, the prevalence of FI was higher in constipated compared to non-constipated women (14% vs. 8%, p < 0.001) while constipation was also more prevalent among incontinent compared to continent women (43% vs. 30%, p < 0.001) [31]. Our results are consistent with previous findings, showing longer duration of defaecation associated with FI. Longer duration of defaecation indicates constipation, as patients have to spend more time on the toilet.

            FI has also been shown to be related to chronic illness, mainly inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis and diabetes mellitus [32]. In this study, we found FI was associated with diabetes mellitus (13.9% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.026). Other studies have also shown FI to be a concern for diabetics due to damage to the nervous system caused by long-standing diabetes [3335]. A majority of patients in this study had mild incontinence (76%) and only 6.0% had severe incontinence as measured by the WCS. We did not find any association between risk factors and the severity of FI.

            There are several limitations in the current study. Subjects in the study were drawn from a convenience sample of patients and their accompanying relatives recruited from the O&G, General Surgery and Antenatal clinics of the UMMC. As an initial exploratory study, we did not recruit respondents from other specialist clinics in UMMC. However, we recognize that the sampling method and location limits its generalizability to the larger Malaysian population. Although the results cannot be considered to be representative of the entire Malaysian population, it may give some indication of occurrence of the condition in the absence of a more representative study. Furthermore, the recruitment of respondents from the antenatal and O&G clinics may give rise to concern about a preponderance of women with obstetric complications leading to FI. However, the prevalence of FI in our study sample is similar to other reported studies. Lastly, FI in this study was self-reported by subjects based on their answers to the questionnaire and their understanding of what was asked. The self-reporting format may allow for more anonymity to the patient, so we think that the results provide a reasonable indication of the disease prevalence in patients at this hospital setting. Despite these limitations, we believe the findings are worth considering for various reasons. Among them are that the study recruited a large sample of one thousand subjects and included not only patients, but people who accompanied them to the clinic.

            Conclusions

            To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to estimate the prevalence of FI in a population of Malaysian patients as well as estimate its severity and the risk factors associated with the condition. The results of our study suggest that FI in our setting is prevalent enough to warrant targeted healthcare interventions, including the need to improve general public awareness of the condition, in order to counter social stigma and embarrassment that may be faced by patients. Further study, preferably in a more representative sample of the population, ought to be conducted to determine the extent of FI among Malaysians.

            Declarations

            Acknowledgements

            We would like to thank Associate Professor Noor Azmi b. Mat Adenan of the UMMC Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology for granting permission to conduct the survey at the Department’s O&G and antenatal clinics, Dr. Noor Elina Shaari, Hernany Shamsuddin and Saidatul Saadah Ramlan of UMMC for their assistance with the data collection and Siti Haryanie of Azmi Burhani Consulting for performing the statistical analysis.

            Authors’ Affiliations

            (1)
            Department of Surgery, University of Malaya Medical Centre
            (2)
            Azmi Burhani Consulting Sdn Bhd
            (3)
            Veras Research Sdn Bhd

            References

            1. Donnelly VS, O’Herlihy C, Campbell DM, O’Connell PR: Postpartum fecal incontinence is more common in women with irritable bowel syndrome. Dis Colon Rectum 1998, 41:586–589.PubMedView Article
            2. Perry S, Shaw C, McGrother C: Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community. Gut 2002, 50:480–484.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            3. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN: Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 1993, 329:1905–1911.PubMedView Article
            4. Collings S, Norton C: Women's experiences of faecal incontinence: a study. Br J Community Nurs 2004, 9:520–523.PubMed
            5. Bliss DZ, Fischer LR, Savik K, Avery M, Mark P: Severity of fecal incontinence in community-living elderly in a health maintenance organization. Res Nurs Health 2004, 27:162–173.PubMedView Article
            6. Johanson JF, Lafferty J: Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol 1996, 91:33–36.PubMed
            7. Shamliyan T, Wyman J, Bliss DZ, Kane RL, Wilt TZ: Prevention of urinary and fecal incontinence in adults. Evid Rep Technol Assess 2007, 161:1–379.
            8. Macmillan AK, Merrie AE, Marshall RJ, Parry BR: The prevalence of fecal incontinence in community dwelling adults: a systematic review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum 2004, 47:1341–1349.PubMedView Article
            9. Talley NJ, O’Keefe EA, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ: Prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in the elderly: a population- based study. Gastroenterology 1992, 102:895–901.PubMed
            10. Nelson R, Norton N, Caytley E, Furner S: Community based prevalence of anal incontinence. JAMA 1995, 274:559–561.PubMedView Article
            11. Melville JL, Fan M-Y, Newton K, Fenner D: Fecal incontinence in US women: a population-based study. Am J ObstGynecol 2005, 193:2071–2076.View Article
            12. Bharucha AE, Zinsmeister AR, Locke GR, Seide BM, McKeon K, Schleck CD, Melton LJ: Prevalence and burden of fecal incontinence: a population-based study in women. Gastroenterology 2005, 129:42–49.PubMedView Article
            13. Walter S, Hallböök O, Gotthard R, Bergmark M, Sjödahl R: population-based study on bowel habits in a Swedish community: prevalence of faecal incontinence and constipation. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002, 37:911–916.PubMedView Article
            14. Nakanishi N, Tatara K, Naramura H, Fujiwara H, Takashima Y, Fukuda H: Urinary and fecal incontinence in a community-residing older population in Japan. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997, 45:215–219.PubMed
            15. Chen GD, Hu SW, Chen YC, Lin TL: Prevalence and correlations of anal incontinence and constipation in Taiwanese women. Neurourol Urodyn 2003,22(7):664–669.PubMedView Article
            16. Ge J, Lu YX, Shen WJ, Zhang Y, Li XY, Yang P, Wang QY: Prevalence of fecal incontinence among adult women in Beijing District. Chin J Obstet Gynecol 2010, 45:669–672.
            17. Kang HW, Jung HK, Kwon KJ, Song EM, Choi JY, Kim SE, Shim KN, Jung SA: Prevalence and predictive factors of faecal incontinence. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012, 18:86–93.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            18. Rizk EE, Mohammed YH, Huda S, Cherian JV, Micallef R: The prevalence and determinants of health care-seeking behavior for fecal incontinence in multiparous United Arab Emirates females. Dis Colon Rectum 2001,44(12):1850–1856.PubMedView Article
            19. Bener A, Saleh N, Burgut FT: Prevalence and determinants of fecal incontinence in premenopausal women in an Arabian community. Climacteric 2008,11(5):429–435.PubMedView Article
            20. Jorge JMN, Wexner SD: Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993, 36:77–97.PubMedView Article
            21. Tjandra JJ, Chan MKY, Kwok SY: Predictive factors for faecal incontinence after third or fourth degree obstetrics tears. Dis Colon Rectum 2008, 10:681–688.
            22. Mohd SS: The prevalence of urinary incontinence among the elderly in a rural community in Selangor. Malays J Med Sci 2010,17(2):18–23.
            23. Markland AD, Kraus SR, Richter HE, Nager CW, Kenton K, Kerr L, Xu Y: Urinary incontinence treatment network. Prevalence and risk factors of fecalincontinence in women undergoing stress incontinence surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007, 197:662.e1-e2.
            24. Whitehead WE, Borrud L, Goode PS, Meikle S, Mueller ER, Tuteja A, Weidner A, Weinstein M, Ye W: Pelvic floor disorders network. Fecal incontinence in U.S. adults: epidemiology and risk factors. Gastroenterology 2010, 137:512–517. e2View Article
            25. Quander CR, Morris MC, Melson J, Bienias JL, Evans DA: Prevalence of and factors associated with fecal incontinence in a large community study of older individuals. Am J Gastroenterol 2005, 100:905–909.PubMedView Article
            26. Teunissen TA, van den Bosch WJ, van den Hoogen HJ, Lagro-Janssen AL: Prevalence of urinary, fecal and double incontinence in the elderly living at home. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2004, 15:10–13. discussion 13PubMedView Article
            27. Christoforidis D, Bordeianou L, Rockwood TH, Lowry AC, Parker S, Mellgren AF: Faecal incontinence in men. Colorectal Dis 2011, 13:906–913.PubMedView Article
            28. Lam TCF, Kennedy ML, Chen FC, Lubowski DZ, Talley NJ: Prevalence of faecal incontinence: obstetric and constipation-related risk factors; a population-based study. Color Dis 1999, 1:197–203.View Article
            29. Fox JC, Fletcher JG, Zinsmeister AR, Seide B, Riederer SJ, Bharucha AE: Effect of aging on anorectal and pelvic floor functions in females. Dis Colon Rectum 2006,49(11):1726–1735.PubMedView Article
            30. Rømmen K, Schei B, Rydning A, H Sultan A, Mørkved S: Prevalence of anal incontinence among Norwegian women: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2012, 2:e001257.PubMedView Article
            31. Sze EH, Barker CD, Hobbs G: A cross-sectional survey of the relationship between fecal incontinence and constipation. Int Urogynecol J 2012,24(1):61–5.PubMedView Article
            32. Chatoor DR, Taylor SJ, Cohen CR, Emmanuel AV: Faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 2007, 94:134–144.PubMedView Article
            33. Rodrigues ML, Motta ME: Mechanisms and factors associated with gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2012,88(1):17–24.View Article
            34. Oh JH, Choi MG, Kang MI, Lee KM, Kim JI, Kim BW, Lee DS, Kim SS, Choi H, Han SW, Choi KY, Son HY, Chung IS: The prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. Korean J Intern Med 2009,24(4):309–317.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            35. Shakil A, Church RJ, Rao SS: Gastrointestinal complications of diabetes. Am Fam Physician 2008,77(12):1697–1702.PubMed
            36. Pre-publication history

              1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1471-230X/​14/​95/​prepub

            Copyright

            © Roslani et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

            This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.