Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25179492›Full record

ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2015

Rectal effluent as a research tool.

Jana M Rocker, Jack A DiPalma, Lewis K Pannell

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jana M RockerUniversity of South Alabama Mitchell Cancer Institute, Mobile, AL, USA, jrocker@health.southalabama.edu.
Jack A DiPalma
Lewis K Pannell
University of South Alabama · USUSA Mitchell Cancer Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies of localized secretions are generally superior to those of blood because they contain higher concentrations of molecules specific to the organ of interest. A common method used to analyze localized secretions is lavage. The flow of fluid over the lining of a cavity picks up both cells and soluble factors, and the effluent can be collected for study. Gastrointestinal (GI) lavage is easily and noninvasively performed by the administration of gut lavage solutions such as those routinely given to patients prior to colonoscopy, with GI lavage fluid being the copious, watery rectal effluent subsequently induced. Residual effluent is currently suctioned from the colon and discarded during colonoscopy. With millions of routine colonoscopies performed per year, GI lavage fluid is a rich and largely untapped resource for basic and clinical research. Rectal effluent can also be easily collected in a toilet receptacle without need for a colonoscopy. Rectal effluent generated in this manner has been used to study diarrheal disease, mucosal immunology, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, and cancer. It is often referred to as gut lavage, colon lavage, GI lavage, or whole gut lavage fluid, which makes it challenging to locate previous studies in the literature and there are currently no comprehensive reviews of its use as a research tool. This review attempts to fill this void by discussing previous applications of rectal effluent in research and the methods that have been developed for its collection, stabilization, and analysis.

Indexed as

Body FluidsTherapeutic IrrigationBiomedical ResearchCeliac DiseaseColonoscopyGastric LavageHumansImmunoglobulinsInflammatory Bowel DiseasesIntestinal MucosaRectumReference ValuesImmunoglobulins

Identifiers

PMID25179492
OpenAlexW2138693526

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.