Systematic review of the prevalence of faecal incontinence
British journal of surgery2016Vol. 103(12), pp. 1589–1597
Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2016 papers
Abstract
When comparable methodologies and definitions are used, studies produce remarkably similar prevalence rates in different community populations. FI remains an unspoken symptom, with lower rates reported in personal interviews compared with anonymous postal questionnaires.
Related Papers
- → A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification(2005)127 cited
- → Selecting a database for literature searches in nursing: MEDLINE or CINAHL?(1996)46 cited
- → MEDLINE Versus EMBASE and CINAHL for Telemedicine Searches(2010)39 cited
- → Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE Databases for the Nurse Researcher(1993)30 cited
- → VP30 Evaluation Of CINAHL In Six Systematic Reviews On Maternal Care(2019)