Garg incontinence scores: New scoring system on the horizon to evaluate fecal incontinence. Will it make a difference?

The main aim of this opinion review is to comment on the recent article published by Garg et al in the World Journal of Gastroenterology 2023; 29: 4593–4603. The authors in the published article developed a new scoring system, Garg incontinence scores (GIS), for fecal incontinence (FI). FI is a chronic debilitating disease that has a severe negative impact on the quality of life of the patients. Rome IV criteria define FI as multiple episodes of solid or liquid stool passed into the clothes at least twice a month. The associated social stigmatization often leads to significant under-reporting of the condition, which further impairs management. An important point is that the complexity and vagueness of the disease make it difficult for the patients to properly define and report the magnitude of the problem to their physicians. Due to this, the management becomes even more difficult. This issue is resolved up to a considerable extent by a scoring questionnaire. There were several scoring systems in use for the last three decades. The prominent of them were the Cleveland Clinic scoring system or the Wexner scoring system, St. Marks Hospital or Vaizey’s scores, and the FI severity index. However, there were several shortcomings in these scoring systems. In the opinion review, we tried to analyze the strength of GIS and compare it to the existing scoring systems. The main pitfalls in the existing scoring systems were that most of them gave equal weightage to different types of FI (solid, liquid, flatus, etc. ), were not comprehensive, and took only the surgeon’s perception of FI into view. In GIS, almost all shortcomings of previous scoring systems had been addressed: different weights were assigned to different types of FI by a robust statistical methodology; the scoring system was made comprehensive by including all types of FI that were previously omitted (urge, stress and mucus FI) and gave priority to patients’ rather than the physicians’ perceptions while developing the scoring system. Due to this, GIS indeed looked like a paradigm shift in the evaluation of FI. However, it is too early to conclude this, as GIS needs to be validated for accuracy and simplicity in future studies.