Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19093206›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2009

Discriminative value of anorectal manometry in clinical practice.

Naeem Raza, Klaus Bielefeldt

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Diagnostic testing for fecal incontinence.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2014
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Naeem RazaDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Klaus Bielefeldt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guidelines recommend anorectal manometry in patients with fecal incontinence and chronic constipation. However, limited evidence supports the utility of manometric testing. We retrospectively reviewed tracings obtained between November 2005 and May 2008. A total of 298 patients (86% women; average age 52 years) were included. The main indications were incontinence (51%) and constipation (42%). Patients suffering from incontinence were older and had lower resting and squeeze pressure compared to continent patients. However, the discriminative power of manometric pressure data was poor, with low sensitivity and specificity. An abnormal straining pattern suggesting dyssynergic defecation was seen in 43% of constipated patients compared to 13% of patients with fecal incontinence. A concordance between manometric patterns and the balloon expulsion test was seen in 72%. The low sensitivity and specificity of manometric parameters does not support the routine use of anorectal manometry in patients with defecation disorders.

Indexed as

AdultConstipationDefecationFecal IncontinenceFemaleHumansMaleManometryMiddle AgedPressureReflexSensory Thresholds

Identifiers

PMID19093206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.