ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2016
Digitation associated with defecation: what does it mean in urogynaecological patients?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Content Validation and Translation of the Modified Initial Measurement of Patient-Reported Pelvic Floor Complaints Tool Short Form in Kannada.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Current Trends in Management of Defecatory Dysfunction, Posterior Compartment Prolapse, and Fecal Incontinence.Current obstetrics and gynecology reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisObstructed defecation is a common symptom complex in urogynaecological patients, and perineal, vaginal and/or anal digitation may required for defecation. Translabial ultrasound can be used to assess anorectal anatomy, similar to defecation proctography. The aim of the present study was to determine the association between different forms of digitation (vaginal, perineal and anal) and abnormal posterior compartment anatomy.
methodsA total of 271 patients were analysed in a retrospective study utilising archived ultrasound volume datasets. Symptoms of obstructed defecation (straining at stool, incomplete bowel emptying, perineal, vaginal and anal digitation) were ascertained on interview. Postprocessing of stored 3D/4D translabial ultrasound datasets obtained on maximal Valsalva was used to diagnose descent of the rectal ampulla, rectocoele, enterocoele and rectal intussusception at a later date, blinded to all clinical data.
resultsDigitation was reported by 39 % of our population. The position of the rectal ampulla on Valsalva was associated with perineal (p = 0.02) and vaginal (p = 0.02) digitation. The presence of a true rectocoele was significantly associated with perineal (p = 0.04) and anal (p = 0.03) digitation. Rectocoele depth was associated with all three forms of digitation (P = 0.005-0.02). The bother of symptoms of obstructed defecation was strongly associated with digitation (all P < = 0.001), with no appreciable difference in bother among the three forms.
conclusionDigitation is common, and all forms of digitation are associated with abnormal posterior compartment anatomy. It may not be necessary to distinguish between different forms of digitation in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26264476What 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.