ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2016
Clinical utility of balloon expulsion test for functional defecation disorders.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Characteristics of Different Primary Constipation Subtypes in a Chinese Population.Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeI investigated the diagnostic accuracy of balloon expulsion test (BET) with various techniques to find out the most appropriate method, and tried to confirm its clinical utility in diagnosing functional defecation disorders (FDD) in constipated patients.
methodsEighty-seven patients constituted the study population. FDD was defined when patients had at least two positive findings in defecography, manometry, and electromyography. BET was done 4 times in each patient with 2 different positions and 2 different volumes. The positions were seated position (SP) and left lateral decubitus position (LDP). The volumes were fixed volume (FV) of 60 mL and individualized volume with which patient felt a constant desire to defecate (CDV). The results of BETs with 4 different settings (LDP-FV, LDP-CDV, SP-FV, and SP-CDV) were statistically compared and analyzed.
resultsOf 87 patients, 23 patients (26.4%) had at least two positive findings in 3 tests and thus were diagnosed to have FDD. On receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, area under curve was highest in BET with SP-FV. With a cutoff value of 30 seconds, the specificity of BET with SP-FV was 86.0%, sensitivity was 73.9%, negative predictive value was 89.8%, positive predictive value was 65.4%, and accuracy rate was 82.8% for diagnosing FDD.
conclusionSP-FV is the most appropriate method for BET. In this setting, BET has a diagnostic accuracy sufficient to identify constipated patients who do not have FDD. Patients with negative results in BET with SP-FV may not need other onerous tests to exclude FDD.
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.