ArticleThe Permanente journal2016
Anal Health Care Basics.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the bowel urgency numeric rating scale in patients with Crohn's disease: results from a mixed methods study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Advancements in Rectal Drug Delivery Systems: Clinical Trials, and Patents Perspective.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Article
- Association of eating behavior with symptoms of pelvic floor disorders in middle-aged women: An observational study.Women's health (London, England)Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the fact that countless patients suffer from anal problems, there tends to be a lack of understanding of anal health care. Unfortunately, this leads to incorrect diagnoses and treatments. When treating a patient with an anal complaint, the primary goals are to first diagnose the etiology of the symptoms correctly, then to provide an effective and appropriate treatment strategy.The first step in this process is to take an accurate history and physical examination. Specific questions include details about bowel habits, anal hygiene, and fiber supplementation. Specific components of the physical examination include an external anal examination, a digital rectal examination, and anoscopy if appropriate.Common diagnoses include pruritus ani, anal fissures, hemorrhoids, anal abscess or fistula, fecal incontinence, and anal skin tags. However, each problem presents differently and requires a different approach for management. It is of paramount importance that the correct diagnosis is reached. Common errors include an inaccurate diagnosis of hemorrhoids when other pathology is present and subsequent treatment with a steroid product, which is harmful to the anal area.Most of these problems can be avoided by improving bowel habits. Adequate fiber intake with 30 g to 40 g daily is important for many reasons, including improving the quality of stool and preventing colorectal and anal diseases.In this Special Report, we provide an overview of commonly encountered anal problems, their presentation, initial treatment options, and recommendations for referral to specialists.
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.