Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26676232›Full record

ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2014

Endosonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of high anal fistulae - a comparison.

Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska, Agnieszka Kucharczyk, Małgorzata Kołodziejczak, Agnieszka Warczyńska, Grzegorz Pracoń, Anna Wiączek

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ultrasonography, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Iwona Sudoł-SzopińskaZakład Radiologii, Instytut Reumatologii, Warszawa, Polska ; Zakład Diagnostyki Obrazowej, Warszawski Uniwersytet Medyczny, Warszawa, Polska ; Pododdział Proktologii, Szpital na Solcu, Warszawa, Polska.
Agnieszka KucharczykPododdział Proktologii, Szpital na Solcu, Warszawa, Polska.
Małgorzata KołodziejczakPododdział Proktologii, Szpital na Solcu, Warszawa, Polska.
Agnieszka WarczyńskaZakład Radiologii, Instytut Reumatologii, Warszawa, Polska.
Grzegorz PracońZakład Radiologii, Instytut Reumatologii, Warszawa, Polska.
Anna WiączekPododdział Proktologii, Szpital na Solcu, Warszawa, Polska.
Fundacion Instituto de Reumatologia Fernando Chalem · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anal fistula is a benign inflammatory disease with unclear etiology which develops in approximately 10 in 100 000 adult patients. Surgical treatment of fistulae is associated with a risk of damaging anal sphincters. This usually happens in treating high fistulae, branched fistulae, and anterior ones in females. In preoperative diagnosis of anal fistulae, endosonography and magnetic resonance imaging play a significant role in planning the surgical technique. The majority of fistulae are diagnosed in endosonography, but magnetic resonance is performed when the presence of high fistulae, particularly branched ones, and recurrent is suspected. THE AIM OF THIS PAPER: The aim of this paper was to compare the roles of the two examinations in preoperative assessment of high anal fistulae. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe results of endosonographic and magnetic resonance examinations performed in 2011-2012 in 14 patients (4 women and 10 men) with high anal fistulae diagnosed intraoperatively were subject to a retrospective analysis. The patients were aged from 23 to 66 (mean 47). The endosonographic examinations were performed with the use of a BK Medical Pro Focus system with endorectal 3D transducers with the frequency of 16 MHz. The magnetic resonance scans were performed using a Siemens Avanto 1.5 T scanner with a surface coil in T1, T1FS, FLAIR, T2 sequences and in T1 following contrast medium administration. The sensitivity and specificity of endosonography and magnetic resonance imaging were analyzed. A surgical treatment served as a method for verification. The agreement of each method with the surgery and the agreement of endosonography and magnetic resonance imaging were compared in terms of the assessment of the fistula type, localization of its internal opening and branches. The agreement level was determined based on the percentage of consistent assessments and Cohen's coefficient of agreement, κ. The integrity of the anal sphincters was assessed in each case.

resultsIn determining the fistula type, magnetic resonance imaging agreed with intraoperative assessment in 79% of cases, and endosonography in 64% of cases. Endosonography agreed with magnetic resonance in 57% of cases. In the assessment of internal opening, the agreement between endosonography and intraoperative assessment was 65%, between magnetic resonance and intraoperative assessment - 41% and between endosonography and magnetic resonance - 53%. In the assessment of fistula branches, endosonography agreed with intraoperative assessment in 67% of cases, magnetic resonance in 87% of cases, and the agreement between the two methods tested was 67%.

conclusionsMagnetic resonance is a more accurate method than endosonography in determining the type of high fistulae and the presence of branches. In assessing the internal opening, endosonography proved more accurate. The agreement between the two methods ranges from 53-67%; the highest level of agreement was noted for the assessment of branching.

Indexed as

anal fistulaendosonographyfecal incontinencemagnetic resonance imagingrectal fistula

Identifiers

PMID26676232
PMCPMC4579692
OpenAlexW2409184422

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.