ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2012
[Anorectal diagnostics for proctological diseases].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The majority of proctological diseases can be defined by a structured evaluation of the symptoms and a physical examination. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and anal endosonography can detect complex anal fistulas with a high accuracy but MRI should be preferred because of its objective visualization. Functional anorectal disorders are multifactorial and show morphological and functional irregularities in different compartments of the pelvic floor which is why MR defecography is now one of the most important methods in diagnostic algorithms. Interpreting the results of anal endosonography, anal manometry and neurophysiological testing is highly demanding because of large interindividual variability. Scores are used for objective measurement of symptom severity and quality of life. In clinical practice, well validated scores evaluated in large patient groups with predetermined circumstances are needed. Bringing together morphological results with scores based on subjective perception is required to optimize diagnostics and therapy evaluation in proctology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.