Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21694837›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental gastroenterology2009

Patients' views of medical positioning for proctologic examination.

Ole Gebbensleben, York Hilger, Henning Rohde

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 80% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Ole GebbenslebenPark-Klinik Berlin-Weissensee, Innere Abteilung, Berlin, Germany;
York Hilger
Henning Rohde

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is unknown which proctological position is most embarrassing to patients.

methodsIndividuals consecutively referred to our outpatient clinic in order to determine the causes of anal and/or abdominal complaints were randomized to complete an unvalidated six-item questionnaire which asked for their preferred proctologic positioning either before or after a proctological examination in knee-chest position followed by inspection of the anal verge, digital examination of the anal canal, and anoscopy. A third group of patients referred for gastroscopy was asked to complete the questionnaire before being gastroscoped.

resultsOne hundred seventy-eight individuals of both genders aged 16-80 years who consecutively entered our outpatient clinic were enrolled. One third in each group had never experienced any of the offered medical positionings. Most patients favored the Sims' position if they had the choice. Randomized patients favored the knee-chest position more after experiencing it compared to those without experience (P < 0.03). Patients favored the positions they had recently experienced irrespective of the other positions offered in the questionnaire (P < 0.05). Individual answers to the question 'which position do you find most embarrassing?' did not depend on sex or age at first examination or when their last examination was performed. The majority of patients (55.2%-71.4%) held that no type of proctological positioning was most embarrassing to them.

conclusionsThe medical profession is authorized to use the proctological positioning that allows the most reliable anal diagnoses.

Indexed as

anal bleedinganal itchanal painbenign anal diseaseshemorrhoidsproctological positioningpruritus ani

Identifiers

PMID21694837
PMCPMC3108641
OpenAlexW2102563532

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.