Trial reportNeurogastroenterology and motility2017
Reproducibility of high-definition (3D) manometry and its agreement with high-resolution (2D) manometry in women with fecal incontinence.
Trial report in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Pooled it
- Reproducibility of high-resolution manometry among healthy and constipated persons.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Article
- Do we need an extra dimension? A pilot study on the use of three-dimensional anorectal manometry in children with functional constipation.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Article
- Review of the indications, methods, and clinical utility of anorectal manometry and the rectal balloon expulsion test.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022Review
- A multicenter study of anorectal pressures and rectal sensation measured with portable manometry in healthy women and men.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2021Article
- Percutaneous electrical stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve for the treatment of fecal incontinence: manometric results after 6 months of treatment.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Article
- Comparison of anorectal function measured using wearable digital manometry and a high resolution manometry system.PloS one · 2020Observational
- 3D high-resolution anorectal manometry in patients with perianal fistulas: comparison with 3D-anal ultrasound.BMC gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Recent advances in understanding and managing chronic constipation.F1000Research · 2018Review
- High-resolution anorectal manometry: An expensive hobby or worth every penny?Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile widely used in clinical practice, the reproducibility of high-definition anorectal manometry (HD-ARM) remains unclear. We evaluated the intra-individual reproducibility of HD-ARM and compared pressures measured with HD-ARM and high-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM).
methodsThirty-six women with fecal incontinence had an initial HD-ARM (HD-ARM1); on the same day, after randomization, 21 had a second (HD-ARM2). Sixteen women had a third (HD-ARM3) 4 weeks later. Twenty-five had also been evaluated by HR-ARM previously. Rectoanal pressures were assessed at rest, during squeeze and simulated evacuation. Concordance among pressures was assessed with Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). KEY
resultsAnal resting and squeeze pressures measured with HD-ARM were reproducible on the same and different days; for average resting pressures of HD-ARM1 vs HD-ARM2, CCC = 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.94), and for HD-ARM1 vs HD-ARM3, CCC = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.28-0.93). For maximum squeeze pressures of HD-ARM1 vs HD-ARM2, CCC = 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75-0.97), and for HD-ARM1 vs HD-ARM3, CCC = 0.56 (95% CI: 0.21-0.91). The rectoanal gradient during evacuation was significantly concordant between HD-ARM1 and HD-ARM2 but not HD-ARM1 and HD-ARM3. Resting (CCC = 0.38 [95% CI: 0.14-0.62]) and squeeze pressures (CCC = 0.73 [95% CI: 0.57-0.89]) measured with HD-ARM1 and HR-ARM were also concordant. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Among women with fecal incontinence, measurements with HD-ARM were reproducible on the same (anal resting and squeeze pressures and rectoanal gradient during evacuation) and different days (anal resting and squeeze pressures) and correlated with HR-ARM measurements. These findings support use of HD-ARM and HR-ARM for longitudinal assessments of anal resting and squeeze pressures.
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.