Observational studyLa Radiologia medica2014
Defaecography and colonic transit time for the evaluation of female patients with obstructed defaecation.
Observational study in La Radiologia medica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bilateral posterior tibial nerve stimulation as a neuromodulation strategy for obstructed defecation: a randomized controlled trial.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Trial
- Optimal management of constipation associated with irritable bowel syndrome.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeColonic transit time and defaecography are well known, commonly used studies for evaluating patients with chronic constipation. The aim of this study was to compare colonic transit time with radiopaque markers and defaecography in female patients with obstructed defaecation. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a prospective observational study, between January 2010 and December 2012, a total of 30 female patients, mean age 60 years, with symptoms of obstructed defaecation were subjected to colonic transit time and defaecography, and divided into two groups: normal or abnormal colon transit time. The results were statistically compared using the Chi-square test.
resultsThe comparison of data between colonic transit time and defaecography showed the following groups: group 1 (6/30 = 20 %) with normal colonic transit time but abnormal defaecography, and group 2 (24/30 = 80 %) with abnormal colonic transit time; the latter was further divided into two subgroups: group 2a (4/24 = 17 %), patients with inertia coli; group 2b (20/24 = 83 %), patients with impaired defaecation demonstrated at defaecography. There was a significant statistical difference between the radiological findings in these groups.
conclusionsThis study confirmed the value of both defaecography and colonic transit time in assessing clinically obstructed women. Obstructed defaecation might not always be associated with abnormal colonic transit time. Likewise, not all constipated patients had signs of obstructed defaecation. The differential diagnosis between colonic slow transit constipation and constipation due to pelvic floor disorders is essential for an adequate strategy of care.
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.